But I must speak to get this off my chest. Personally I feel insulted that the game I love, loved by millions around the world, was ignorantly put down by a presidential hopeful and his staff (as far as I'm concerned, if it's on his website, then he has to be held responsible).
Mr. Wayne Charness' letter raises some good points, that our beloved game companies, Hasbro and WotC, have done so much to support the U.S. Armed Forces, in their own way. I'm sure the GIs, some of whom are D&D players, do not appreciate the disparaging comments that insult them as well, when they're out there serving their country.
I mean, come on, D&D players that live in mom's basement? Where did that come from? I'll have you know many players lead successful, fulfilling lives. I'm a dentist with a successful practice working in Hong Kong, with a wife and child, and in case Mr. Goldfarb is wondering we live in our own appartment. I grew up on the game, and I can say that it has had a profoundly positive effect on my life.
I would also like to add that many children open up to new friends and socialize, learn to love reading and develop imaginations that fuel creative talent, all through D&D. The game also rewards goodness and heroics, in a way instilling these values in children. We would probably need another thread to cover the "additional benefits" of D&D. I know, because I was one of them.
What in the nine hells is the man thinking, insulting both Obama supporters and us D&D fans. Thanks to his thoughtless remarks, any Obama supporters insulted by him are sure to stick to Obama like glue (no chance of converting, sorry!), and any D&D fan voting in the upcoming presidential election sure as heck won't vote for such an ignorant camp. I MSNed my friends in the US to discuss this piece of news (I used to live up in Toronto), and if their reaction is any indication of how the 18-35 yr age group will react... well lets just say Mr. Obama might be thanking McCain's camp for the extra votes.
I think Mr. Leeds and Mr. Charness have said all that they really have to in this matter, since the Hasbro and WotC staff have to keep their personal feelings out of this. So I'll start the personal ranting. Thanks for reading.
Having served in the Army myself and being a fan of D&D (who has never lived or played in a basement) I understand people feeling slighted and am thankful WotC took the time to stand up to ignorant comments and defend it's fanbase.
Kudos, WotC.
It was said in ignorance and was not well thought out. WotC sent the letter and, hopefully, will receive a response to it showing that the person made an error and is truly apologetic.
Having served in the Army myself and being a fan of D&D (who has never lived or played in a basement) I understand people feeling slighted and am thankfully WotC took the time to stand up to ignorant comments and defend it's fanbase.
Kudos, WotC.
Waste of paper, waste of time, and just another sign of our "me too I am also a victim" culture. Personally the reaction by my fellow gamers was enough to make me not want to game any more.
Waste of paper, waste of time, and just another sign of our "me too I am also a victim" culture. Personally the reaction by my fellow gamers was enough to make me not want to game any more.
You quit gaming over the internet reaction to Goldfarb's comments? That seems like an overreaction all of it's own.
Waste of paper, waste of time, and just another sign of our "me too I am also a victim" culture. Personally the reaction by my fellow gamers was enough to make me not want to game any more.
Your choice. Personally I think WotC did right by it's fans by sending that letter.
You quit gaming over the internet reaction to Goldfarb's comments? That seems like an overreaction all of it's own.
I didn't quit. But the over-reaction made me want to stop yes. That and I am tired of playing D&D in my mother's basement ;)
I don't care what other people think. Quite liberating actually. Mccain is the antichrist.
Okay?
Waste of paper, waste of time, and just another sign of our "me too I am also a victim" culture. Personally the reaction by my fellow gamers was enough to make me not want to game any more.
See the problem is that if you allow the ignorant ideas to go unchecked then it won't stop. It is part of a culture that allows the role-playing type to be attacked unchecked.
In this specific case, it was a verbal attack and a minor one. However, that is not where the prejudice stops. There are places in this country where people will be fired or physically attacked because of the fact that they play D&D and are considered bad because of it. This is not your experience I assume and you should count yourself lucky for that. However, based on your other posts you obviously don't realize that it is a real issue.
A remark like that wouldn't have gone unchecked if it were based on religion, race or gender, but since it was towards a hobby culture it was let slide by many, even within the culture. This is very damaging as it gives those who would stereotype us an open door.
No attack should ever go unchallenged. This is a fundamental idea in the fight against prejudice of all sorts whether it be based on race, hobby, religion or anything else.
See the problem is that if you allow the ignorant ideas to go unchecked then it won't stop. It is part of a culture that allows the role-playing type to be attacked unchecked. .
No its not. People will forget about the comment in a week and frankly, there is some truth to the comment. The reason there is a stereotype of gamers being socially akward fantacists is because it is generally true.
In this specific case, it was a verbal attack and a minor one. However, that is not where the prejudice stops. There are places in this country where people will be fired or physically attacked because of the fact that they play D&D and are considered bad because of it. This is not your experience I assume and you should count yourself lucky for that. However, based on your other posts you obviously don't realize that it is a real issue..
I suspect this is a tongue in cheek post at this point. I hope you are kidding. Gamers do not get fired or physically attacked more than any other segment of the community. And if they do, it is not because they play D&D, but because they exhibity some of the stereotypical character traits of gamers and nerds.
A remark like that wouldn't have gone unchecked if it were based on religion, race or gender, but since it was towards a hobby culture it was let slide by many, even within the culture. This is very damaging as it gives those who would stereotype us an open door. ..
And I am getting tired of everyone reacting anytime someone makes joke that is based on identity. I love religious humor, and I think religious organizations over-react a lot to comedians and radio hosts. That is no reason for gamers to join in the frenzy.
No attack should ever go unchallenged. This is a fundamental idea in the fight against prejudice of all sorts whether it be based on race, hobby, religion or anything else.
Calm down. This isn't the 1960s. No one is keepers gamers out of woolworths or making them sit in the back of hte bus. This was just a joke that ruffled some of our community's more sensitive members' feathers.
No its not. People will forget about the comment in a week and frankly, there is some truth to the comment. The reason there is a stereotype of gamers being socially akward fantacists is because it is generally true.
I wasn't implying that this quote will be the rallying flag of which all anti-D&D will fall under. However, the attitude of let it slide is a poor one that allows for a lot to happen.
I suspect this is a tongue in cheek post at this point. I hope you are kidding. Gamers do not get fired or physically attacked more than any other segment of the community. And if they do, it is not because they play D&D, but because they exhibity some of the stereotypical character traits of gamers and nerds.
Wrong. There are places where people get attacked because D&D is considered a form of devil worship. I know, I know. We like to think that this was left in the 80s, but the truth is that it hasn't been. Also there is at least one person on these forums who has been fired from two jobs because of his D&D hobby. I myself have been signaled out for verbal abuse and have been looked down on because of my hobby and I would appreciate it if people didn't ignore that it happens just because it doesn't happen to them. Note, that I wasn't signaled out before it became known that I play D&D, only after.
And I am getting tired of everyone reacting anytime someone makes joke that is based on identity. I love religious humor, and I think religious organizations over-react a lot to comedians and radio hosts. That is no reason for gamers to join in the frenzy.And I enjoy humor that makes fun of RPGs and the players. However, that's not what this was. This was an attack on a political candidate using D&D players as an insult. It was not funny, nor appropriate.Calm down. This isn't the 1960s. No one is keepers gamers out of woolworths or making them sit in the back of hte bus. This was just a joke that ruffled some of our community's more sensitive members' feathers.
Again this wasn't a joke and, while we are not "forced to sit in the back of the bus", we are signaled out in parts of this country and in other parts of this world. If things like this are challenged when they arise then we can start to empower ourselves as gamers. However, saying that anyone who reacts against this is wasting paper and causing you to quit is completely ignoring the hardships certain people have to deal with in order to play this game.
I wasn't implying that this quote will be the rallying flag of which all anti-D&D will fall under. However, the attitude of let it slide is a poor one that allows for a lot to happen.
Wrong. There are places where people get attacked because D&D is considered a form of devil worship. I know, I know. We like to think that this was left in the 80s, but the truth is that it hasn't been. Also there is at least one person on these forums who has been fired from two jobs because of his D&D hobby. I myself have been signaled out for verbal abuse and have been looked down on because of my hobby and I would appreciate it if people didn't ignore that it happens just because it doesn't happen to them. Note, that I wasn't signaled out before it became known that I play D&D, only after.And I am getting tired of everyone reacting anytime someone makes joke that is based on identity. I love religious humor, and I think religious organizations over-react a lot to comedians and radio hosts. That is no reason for gamers to join in the frenzy.And I enjoy humor that makes fun of RPGs and the players. However, that's not what this was. This was an attack on a political candidate using D&D players as an insult. It was not funny, nor appropriate.
Again this wasn't a joke and, while we are not "forced to sit in the back of the bus", we are signaled out in parts of this country and in other parts of this world. If things like this are challenged when they arise then we can start to empower ourselves as gamers. However, saying that anyone who reacts against this is wasting paper and causing you to quit is completely ignoring the hardships certain people have to deal with in order to play this game.
I think you are over-reacting. I have not met any prejudice because of my hobby. But like any other aspect of my life, I am careful not to be too open in the wrong setting about my personal life. No matter what your outside activity, no one wants to hear about it ad nauseum.
I have lived in the south, in Southern California, the north east, and I have traveled all over the country. There are people who still consider D&D evil, but that isn't what this was. And I have never heard of a gamer being attacked in any of these placed. This was not that kind of joke. He was making fun of people living at home and playing a fantasy game. Not labelling them as devil worshipers.
I haven't endured any harships for playing and I don't know anyone who has. But out of curiosity, how often are you talking about D&D at work? It is honestly something most people are not interested in talking about. And that might have more to do with the reaction than any actual prejudice.
Just because it has never happened to you (it hasn't happened to me, either), doesn't mean it isn't a reality.
Egocentricity at its finest.
Just because it has never happened to you (it hasn't happened to me, either), doesn't mean it isn't a reality.
Bad reasoning at its finest. First, I said I didn't know anyone and had heard of it happening to anyone. Meaning I have never seen anecdotal evidence or studies indicating it occurs or is a problem.
I think you are over-reacting. I have not met any prejudice because of my hobby. But like any other aspect of my life, I am careful not to be too open in the wrong setting about my personal life. No matter what your outside activity, no one wants to hear about it ad nauseum.
I have lived in the south, in Southern California, the north east, and I have traveled all over the country. There are people who still consider D&D evil, but that isn't what this was. And I have never heard of a gamer being attacked in any of these placed. This was not that kind of joke. He was making fun of people living at home and playing a fantasy game. Not labelling them as devil worshipers.
I haven't endured any harships for playing and I don't know anyone who has. But out of curiosity, how often are you talking about D&D at work? It is honestly something most people are not interested in talking about. And that might have more to do with the reaction than any actual prejudice.
Me personally? I rarely talk about the fact that I play RPGs at all because of the social stigma. When it did come out I was usually ostracized if it was outside of my normal gaming community. Now that I have moved recently I have not brought it up except for inside my group. However, I know the community is a better one and I am trying to open up more, but that doesn't change that there are other places that make coming out almost criminal (I exaggerate a little there, but its to get the point across).
I have never been fired myself, but the person who said he was is quoted below. You can judge if he was talking about it a lot or not, but it seemed to me he wasn't.
I'm glad you've never been signaled out based on D&D and I do think it is changing, but that doesn't mean a stereotype can be left alone when it is being used as an attack against someone else. It is damaging to the people who have had to go through it and it is cruel to the men and women serving their country who have to read that the game they play is being put up as one that questions service.
Promised Quote:
I lost my last two jobs in part because I played D&D.
The first was as an Administrative Assistant at a church. No surprise there I guess.
The second was as a Network Assistant at a college university. That was a little bit more surprising to me.
Apparently, reading your D&D books on your lunch break in the breakroom is as insulting to other coworkers as bringing your bible to work.
I think its ironic that I live in my mother's basement, not because I play D&D, but because of the sterotyped prejudice that I have been continually subjected to.
Bad reasoning at its finest. First, I said I didn't know anyone and had heard of it happening to anyone. Meaning I have never seen anecdotal evidence or studies indicating it occurs or is a problem.
Well you have now. ;)
I'm not trying to signal you out here or say that you are being a horrible person because you are disagreeing with me. I just want you to know that before we go on with any discussions. However, I think that your attitude of 'just let it slide' and, more than that, your attitude of 'it makes me want to quit because of the reactions' is not taking into account issues that are out there, which it seems is because you don't know about them (gah run on.)
Hell I make jokes about gaming nerds all the time.
I feel insulted but I am not about to let it effect the way I vote.
Hell I make jokes about gaming nerds all the time.
Which again is fine, but this was not a joke. This was the equivalent of using D&D as an insult to attack Obama. I wouldn't let it effect how I vote, but I also think that writing a letter to the person who said it is justified.
Just a few things I'd like to add.
1.) The community is here to share what they've experienced. If someone says they've been subjected to stereotyped prejudice or ill will because of their D&D hooby, I'd take his word for it. You don't need no studies or anecdotal evidence, because it happened to one or more of us. What, nobody puts it in black and white and it never happened?
For me, back in high school and college, it was kind of like the whole "jocks try to pick on nerds" scenario. I remember a classmate of ours would bother our gaming group whenever we had a game after school, swiping our dice and yelling "stop playing with your imaginary friends".
It's this kind of behaviour that I think we do not need to have to deal with. By the way, this person got what he deserved. Apparently our cleric of Lathander has a pretty good headlock :D .
2.) I agree with Trobon on this one. This was an attack on a political candidate using D&D players as an insult. It was not funny, nor appropriate. If you want a good acceptable example of gamer related humour, go read KoDT. To try an pass Mr. Goldfarb's ignorant remark as a joke, that's not going to slide.
3.) On the subject of studies, I would like to see one that measures occupation, education level, annual income and social/family/marital status of gamers (not just D&D gamers). I would bet that the "lives in mother's basement" remark would only hold true for a small group of players. Please read my original post. Many gamers like myself enjoy successful careers and enjoy life. Just yesterday my son reached the 5 months old landmark
4.) While I'm here, anyone know what Obama's camp's position is on D&D :D ?
Any response from McCain's camp to Mr. Charness' letter?
Thanks for sticking up for our hobby and community, folks.
Boy I'm glad I live in Canada ... LOL
To the tune of a popular song :
«You gotta fiiiight for the riiiiight ... to roll some diiiiices ...»
Goldfarb:
"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."
It is also my understanding this is the third time he has equated D&D players to being something other than "most Americans".
Personally, I found it disparaging but typical to modern campaigns of "Everything I say is right and if you disagree you hate America and it will be destroyed the second my opponent is elected." Whatever.
Tom
I myself have been signaled out for verbal abuse and have been looked down on because of my hobby and I would appreciate it if people didn't ignore that it happens just because it doesn't happen to them. Note, that I wasn't signaled out before it became known that I play D&D, only after.
AND
I think you are over-reacting. I have not met any prejudice because of my hobby. But like any other aspect of my life, I am careful not to be too open in the wrong setting about my personal life. No matter what your outside activity, no one wants to hear about it ad nauseum.
I'm really curious how you can resolve the same two statements in the same post. While there is some judicious snippage to trim the fat, I don't believe any context is missing.
AND
That was him quoting me, but the quote thing got mixed up.
If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.
--Michael Goldfarb
http://ace.new.mu.nu/apology_from_mccains_campaign_blogger
So it seems to me like he might well be a gamer himself...
Just a thought, but that guy is a goon.
It should be noted that Michael Goldfarb also issued this statement:
http://ace.new.mu.nu/apology_from_mccains_campaign_blogger
So it seems to me like he might well be a gamer himself...
That "apology" isn't actually from him; it's from some random blogger apologising on his behalf to make a funny. The election campaign team itself has yet to issue any kind of apology.
I'm really curious how you can resolve the same two statements in the same post. While there is some judicious snippage to trim the fat, I don't believe any context is missing.
AND
The first quote is falsely attributed to me. I never said at all.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Re: Concerning Michael Goldfarb's Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel insulted but I am not about to let it effect the way I vote.
Hell I make jokes about gaming nerds all the time.
*****
I totally agree with Lord Steel. It won't influence my vote either...Obama all the way!
Cheers.
Umm, isn't this like the THIRD thread in this messageboard, in this very forum, relating to Michael Goldfarb's comment about D&D players?
You noticed that too, eh?
Screw McCain and Obama too.
I'm going with Cthulu
Why vote for the lesser evil?
Not that I want to discuss politics in general, but this subject does merrit a responce.
With McCain's consistent racial remarks, it certainly does require a response. He is a bigot and he should be called on it every time. He sees Asians as gooks and uses terms such as a tar baby. He does this because it's in his nature. He comes out and apologizes but if he didn't feel that way, he would try to avoid that type of terminology.
1) I personally will never vote for any person who has not lived the majority of their life on American soil. Either the mainland, or a embasy, or even a milatary base. This takes Mr. Obama out of the picture for me. Yes he is born of American parents, he could never run if that wasn't the case, but that does not matter.
Born 1961. Moved to Indonesia in 1967. Moved back to Hawaii in 1971. Been here ever since. So for 4 years, when he was 6 through 10 years old, he did not live here. The remaining 41 years he has lived in America. Sounds like the majority of his life to me.
2) Have you ever heard the man talk? If it was prepared prior to the apperance he seems to be ok. If he starts answering questions he looks like as much of a fool as "W". He is even more evasive than "W" when answering a question because he really doesn't know what the responce is.
McCain isn't all that great either. Honestly, when left to his own devices he says stupid things (see the tar baby and gook comments). Scripted, he still doesn't sound all that eloquent. At least Obama gets most of his facts straight. McCain is generally way off.
3) There are ertin things that the man has done that are so appaling that I cannot fathom how he is still allowed to run for the job. The most recent example that I can think of is the trip to France last month. A presidential candidate may not address another countries leadreship as their equil. He did so, and then attended some sort of French press confrence where he spoke to the French populace as the "Presidential Elect" which he should never be.
So when McCain traveled to foreign countries after he was the presumptive nominee that was okay? When McCain sent his entourage to Georgia (dealing with Russia) to attempt some diplomacy that was okay? McCain is certainly no angel here. He has done the same thing and usually did it first.
Sorry I will stop ranting. I just think it funny that with all the ammo that Mr. Obama has given the Republican party to use against him, that someone thought it would be good to drag the gaming comunity into it, in a negative light.
Senator Obama seems to be a hard target for the Republicans. The worst they can do is come up with outrageous lies (he's acting like a celebrity, he thinks he's God, etc). When the Republicans start to focus on Obama's platform then I will pay attention to what they have to say. It seems to me that Obama has a much more solid grasp of the actual issues than McCain. Honestly though, I think they are both blowing smoke and making promises that they both know they can't fulfill. Of course, this holds true for every candidate I can remember in my lifetime. I assume that is has been like this longer since people older than me say the same thing.
But there is no excuse for routinely making racist, derogatory and insulting remarks. There's nothing to gain by ticking off every major/minority group you can think of.
Your choice. Personally I think WotC did right by it's fans by sending that letter.
No it didn't. It made them look like thin-skinned idiots because the original comment hit 'too close to home'. Seriously, WotC just whined and cried to a Presidential campaign because their little internet-feelings were hurt. All it actually did was prove the original unfortunate comments absolutely right.
This is probably the most pathetic I've seen the gaming industry ever become.
Just out of curiosity has anyone here been called a geek or a nerd for playing D&D?
My aunts daughter calls me it all the time, esp when I opt to bring it up in conversation with her girlfriends sitting about the couch or table. You'd almost think I do it on purpose for the reaction.
Beyond that, no...unless I am making disparaging comments about D&D players myself. :D
Just out of curiosity has anyone here been called a geek or a nerd for playing D&D?
I was called a 'nerd', so decided 'what the hell' and went on to play D&D.
Though, seriously, I haven't seen D&D alone really be a measuring stick for someone's nerdom.
With McCain's consistent racial remarks, it certainly does require a response. He is a bigot and he should be called on it every time. He sees Asians as gooks and uses terms such as a tar baby. He does this because it's in his nature. He comes out and apologizes but if he didn't feel that way, he would try to avoid that type of terminology.
Well the term tar baby comes from a story. I doubt that term as meant as an racial slur. The same could not be said about the other term.
With McCain's consistent racial remarks, it certainly does require a response. He is a bigot and he should be called on it every time. He sees Asians as gooks and uses terms such as a tar baby. He does this because it's in his nature.
What a well-thought-out, completely supported by the evidence, unbiased analysis of the fine points you've got there. I'm sure it'd be a blast debating politics with you. ... That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. But what would I know? I'm just a typical white person. (That was not an Obama slam, but a point made to point out your hypocrisy.)
I'm fairly certain (IIRC) that McCain explained the whole slur thing. He does not call Asians, as a whole, gooks. He uses the term to refer to the people that beat him daily and tortured him while he was a POW. Basically, he still harbors some resentment to the people (not the Vietnamese, the actual individuals that beat him) that, you know, did their level best to keep him alive so that they could repeatedly cause him harm. It's using a slur, yes, but not towards an entire "race". He uses it in relation to his Vietnam experience and nothing more. To me, at least, it's none too odd for a victim of what McCain went through to be a bit caustic when referring to the actual men that did it to him.
From what I understand (and this was 8 years ago), he didn't apologize but members of his staff did. However it doesn't change much. He could very easily have avoided the entire thing by just saying that he hates those who held him captive. Instead he went right for the racial attack. He is going to be leading our country in dealings with the North Vietnamese. If he is still hating them (and I certainly can understand why), how can we trust that he will make the best decisions?
Would it be acceptable if he had been tortured by Nigerians to use another term? I doubt it.
What a well-thought-out, completely supported by the evidence, unbiased analysis of the fine points you've got there. I'm sure it'd be a blast debating politics with you. ... That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. But what would I know? I'm just a typical white person. (That was not an Obama slam, but a point made to point out your hypocrisy.)
Do you have Google? Try looking up the terms he uses. Explain how I am being hypocritical.
You do know that I came to my conclusions on McCain after seeing what he says and does not before. There is no bias. It is a conclusion based on the facts. McCain is a bigot. There's really no way around this. If you are not a rich white Christian male then you are worthy of his contempt. His actions, jokes, terminology, etc demonstrate this extremely well. He certainly isn't the only bigot out there. He's just one running for President right now. There are plenty in every political party. Most just aren't as vocal.
If you're going to demonize McCain on this issue.. how do you feel about Biden?
McCain is a bigot. There's really no way around this. If you are not a rich white Christian male then you are worthy of his contempt. His actions, jokes, terminology, etc demonstrate this extremely well. He certainly isn't the only bigot out there. He's just one running for President right now. There are plenty in every political party. Most just aren't as vocal.
You really don't want to get into an argument about "which one of the people running for President is the bigot." Remind me, which of the two candidates has been an attending member a certain arch-bigot's anti-white black liberation theology church for 20 years (and only broke it off after the pastor publicly embarrassed him)? That was a rhetorical question, since your answer will no doubt be obfuscation and nonsense. This may not automatically make that person a bigot, but it certainly raises a lot of questions.
Do you have Google? Try looking up the terms he uses. Explain how I am being hypocritical.
You do know that I came to my conclusions on McCain after seeing what he says and does not before. There is no bias. It is a conclusion based on the facts. McCain is a bigot. There's really no way around this. If you are not a rich white Christian male then you are worthy of his contempt. His actions, jokes, terminology, etc demonstrate this extremely well. He certainly isn't the only bigot out there. He's just one running for President right now. There are plenty in every political party. Most just aren't as vocal.
I don't think his use of the term makes him a bigot. At worst it makes him racially insensitive but, given his experience, this is a case where I think the man deserves some leniency. You try being tortured by people belonging to the same ethnic group for years, and lets see if you don't use the harshest word you can think of to describe them.
By the way, I am not voting for McCain, and I am married to south east asian woman. I do not believe that McCain is a bigot.
I was called a 'nerd', so decided 'what the hell' and went on to play D&D.
Though, seriously, I haven't seen D&D alone really be a measuring stick for someone's nerdom.
That's the point it's been excepted in society that people who play D&D are geeks or nerds. I didn't make it up and neither did Goldfarb, he was trying to illustrate a point about the press using what is pretty much well known. If people want D&D to seem less Geeky or Nerdy then you are going to have to change how people look upon the game. WoTC should have been trying to change this for a while, get Celebs, give prize money, whatever to make the game look more appealing to a broader audience.
WoTC should have been trying to change this for a while, get Celebs, give prize money, whatever to make the game look more appealing to a broader audience.
If Paris Hilton or one of the Pop Tarts takes up DMing, I'm going to quit playing altogether.
If Paris Hilton or one of the Pop Tarts takes up DMing, I'm going to quit playing altogether.
Not me I would love to RPG or anything else with Paris.;)
From what I understand (and this was 8 years ago), he didn't apologize but members of his staff did. However it doesn't change much. He could very easily have avoided the entire thing by just saying that he hates those who held him captive. Instead he went right for the racial attack. He is going to be leading our country in dealings with the North Vietnamese. If he is still hating them (and I certainly can understand why), how can we trust that he will make the best decisions?
Would it be acceptable if he had been tortured by Nigerians to use another term? I doubt it.
As far as I know he has no hatred of the N Vietnamese. None. He has some hate for the actual individuals that brutalized him, yes. Just like if I got mugged and beaten by an Italian American (random choice), I may call that one particular person some choice words and hold a grudge towards him and him alone. I would not suddenly hate all Italian Americans. The way I understand it, this is exactly what's going on here. He hates the guys that beat him. I understand that. And the relationship between a man and the man that tortures him can be pretty close. You can bet he still knows exatly how the men that did that to him looked, sounded, smelled, etc. Further evidence, IMO, that this is something on a personal level. Not national.
I just want Mr. Goldfarb to make a genuine apology to all of us involved with D&D for his remark (whether he said it on purpose to insult us or just a hasty slip of a tongue), then we can all move on.
Bob, I'm going to have to call you on this one. McCain's been pretty clear that he refers to the NVA when he's said those terms, and it's hard to blame him.
If you're going to demonize McCain on this issue.. how do you feel about Biden?
McCain only made that clear after his unscripted response on the Straight Talk Express. He likes to play the POW card whenever he makes a mistake. If he was referring to his captors, this seasoned politician could have very easily said so without using racial slurs. The fact that these terms come naturally to him is enough for me to find him bigoted. I grew up with bigots and see how easily they use those terms and then "apologize."
As for Biden, the only thing I can find so far that he said was concerning 7-11's and Dunkin Donuts. He was wrong for saying that as well. There is no excuse for comments like that. Anyone who freely throws around racial attacks/epithets really needs to reevaluate their priorities. Biden is also a bigot and could cost Obama some votes from our middle eastern citizens.
I need to choose someone to vote for and while there are more than two choices, we really only get to know two candidates each cycle. I tend to focus more on the Presidential candidate than his running mate but I do try to keep the running mate in mind. Hopefully whoever wins the election is the one making the final decisions.
Biden is a bigot and so is McCain.
You really don't want to get into an argument about "which one of the people running for President is the bigot." Remind me, which of the two candidates has been an attending member a certain arch-bigot's anti-white black liberation theology church for 20 years (and only broke it off after the pastor publicly embarrassed him)? That was a rhetorical question, since your answer will no doubt be obfuscation and nonsense. This may not automatically make that person a bigot, but it certainly raises a lot of questions.
That document is not racially charged. It does nothing to oppress other races. It is focused on the black community because that's the community using that church. The purpose is to bring the community up to where everyone else is, not to knock others down. That's not racism.
As for breaking it off with his pastor, he only did that because the media was trying to say that Rev Wright is the same as Sen Obama. Obama needed the media to focus on the platform not what someone who is not part of his staff was saying. Rev Wright needs to pull his head out of his butt and see that his speeches and actions are holding back the very people he is trying to elevate. This has nothing to do with Obama.
.
Biden is a bigot and so is McCain.
But not Obama, I see so as long as know one has a sound bite of a racial slur, having racist personal friends that is your mentor, spiritual and moral guide are OK? Right?
That document is not racially charged. It does nothing to oppress other races. It is focused on the black community because that's the community using that church. The purpose is to bring the community up to where everyone else is, not to knock others down. That's not racism.
So the KKK and their churches focus on white community I guess their not racists? Right?
I don't think his use of the term makes him a bigot. At worst it makes him racially insensitive but, given his experience, this is a case where I think the man deserves some leniency. You try being tortured by people belonging to the same ethnic group for years, and lets see if you don't use the harshest word you can think of to describe them.
By the way, I am not voting for McCain, and I am married to south east asian woman. I do not believe that McCain is a bigot.
I've had enough of his "I was a POW." He throws it around when it's convenient for him. Being a POW does not give him carte blanch to say or do whatever he likes without criticism. I used to respect him and wanted to vote for him. Now, I really hope he doesn't get elected. I think he will be one of the worst choices this country could ever make.
Even if we give him leniency with the Asian remarks, what about the other remarks that have nothing to do with his POW status? What about joking about killing Iranians with cigarettes? What about joking about bombing Iran as part of a song? What about his jokes about ****? What about his jokes about wife beating? He doesn't act very presidential. It's one thing to tell these jokes to friends with the understanding that they are just that -- jokes. However he does this when the camera or tape is rolling. He knows he can just play the POW card and be forgiven.
As far as I know he has no hatred of the N Vietnamese. None. He has some hate for the actual individuals that brutalized him, yes. Just like if I got mugged and beaten by an Italian American (random choice), I may call that one particular person some choice words and hold a grudge towards him and him alone. I would not suddenly hate all Italian Americans. The way I understand it, this is exactly what's going on here. He hates the guys that beat him. I understand that. And the relationship between a man and the man that tortures him can be pretty close. You can bet he still knows exatly how the men that did that to him looked, sounded, smelled, etc. Further evidence, IMO, that this is something on a personal level. Not national.
That's not what he did though. What he said was: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." He didn't say, "I hated my VC captors. I will hate them as long as I live." He was able to weasel his way out of saying the wrong thing.
I think what happened to him was horrible. We should never treat one another that way. Even as prisoners we can be dignified in our treatment of each other. We can extract information without torture. We don't need to torture just for the sake of torture (which happened to him sometimes). I think he needs to stop playing the POW card whenever he needs some sympathy. Being POW does not make him qualified to be President and it certainly doesn't give him carte blanch to say or do anything without criticism.
So the KKK and their churches focus on white community I guess their not racists? Right?
They don't focus on the white community. They focus on taking away the rights of the non-white community. There is a significant difference. The Black Panthers would be akin to the KKK. Rev Wright's church and document certainly don't even come close. The KKK works to keep the races apart and to keep everyone who is not a white Christian down. That's not the same as elevating a group to be treated equally to the rest.
So the KKK and their churches focus on white community I guess their not racists? Right?
Are the folks from the black churches burning crosses and lynching people for being white?
Nice try, but it's not even comparable.
The services at those churches act as a form of catharsis for those who have suffered racial injustice an as a rallying point to better the congregation's status within the community. White supremacy and any theology surrounding it is hate-speech and hate-crimes practiced by a majority. There's a huge difference between people like Wright and those in the KKK or who are members of anti-semetic/anti-catholic churches or groups like Senator Hagee's congregation.
One is a social remembrance of oppression and declaration of dedication to better one's social standing, the other is about oppressing and harassing people because they have a different set of beliefs/skin colors/etc. If you can't see the difference there, that's kind of scary.
But not Obama, I see so as long as know one has a sound bite of a racial slur, having racist personal friends that is your mentor, spiritual and moral guide are OK? Right?
Do you have friends that you disagree with on some serious moral issues? I do. I try to improve their attitudes toward others by setting the example and calling them on it when it happens.
McCain's people are just as bad. His mentors are just as bad. It's okay for him though right?
Obama is not Rev Wright.
That's not what he did though. What he said was: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." He didn't say, "I hated my VC captors. I will hate them as long as I live." He was able to weasel his way out of saying the wrong thing.
Then who are "the" g's (sorry but if it's wrong to say the N word then it should be equally wrong to say the g word IMO) that's the question and since the VC captured and brutally tortured him I don't think we need specification.
I think what happened to him was horrible. We should never treat one another that way. Even as prisoners we can be dignified in our treatment of each other. We can extract information without torture. We don't need to torture just for the sake of torture (which happened to him sometimes). I think he needs to stop playing the POW card whenever he needs some sympathy. Being POW does not make him qualified to be President and it certainly doesn't give him carte blanch to say or do anything without criticism.
No it just shows that he has character as Fred Thompson put it accurately
That's not what he did though. What he said was: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." He didn't say, "I hated my VC captors. I will hate them as long as I live." He was able to weasel his way out of saying the wrong thing.
I think what happened to him was horrible. We should never treat one another that way. Even as prisoners we can be dignified in our treatment of each other. We can extract information without torture. We don't need to torture just for the sake of torture (which happened to him sometimes). I think he needs to stop playing the POW card whenever he needs some sympathy. Being POW does not make him qualified to be President and it certainly doesn't give him carte blanch to say or do anything without criticism.
The "gooks" were his captors. Not the Vietnamese as a whole. He used a choice word to vent obvious hate gained from the abuses these "gooks" forced upon him. I'm not saying he's justified to use a slur because he was a POW. I'm saying we need to keep this one thing in perspective. He is not insulting an entire "race" of people nor is he bashing a nation. The use of the "POW card" - in this case - is a valid use. He used a word his POW experience put into his mouth. He is calling the men that abused him as a prisoner (the "P" in POW) a derisive term. His experience as a POW cannot be discounted in this case.
That document is not racially charged. It does nothing to oppress other races. It is focused on the black community because that's the community using that church. The purpose is to bring the community up to where everyone else is, not to knock others down. That's not racism.
As for breaking it off with his pastor, he only did that because the media was trying to say that Rev Wright is the same as Sen Obama. Obama needed the media to focus on the platform not what someone who is not part of his staff was saying. Rev Wright needs to pull his head out of his butt and see that his speeches and actions are holding back the very people he is trying to elevate. This has nothing to do with Obama.
The facts for those who care (obviously not Bob there) : Barack Obama repeatedly praised his then-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, calling him a father figure, a friend, etc., writing a book which he named after one of his sermons, and so on. Obama was a member of the church for 20 years, during which time he donated thousands of dollars to it. His children attended this vile place on a regular basis! Rev. Wright extols Black Liberation Theology, which was founded by Marxists and is an anti-white, anti-America, cult-of-victimhood philosophy. The founder of Black Liberation Theology, James Cone, whom Wright has directly praised many times, has said several "interesting" things, such as:
"This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world."
... and...
"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."
This is all well documented and not even disputed by Obama. The link I gave earlier has more information, including references for those quotes.
Everyone, Bob has already lost whatever small shred of credibility he might have previously had. You're not going to reach him with logic and reasoning. Forget him - he's no better than your typical hate-mongering troll.
Are the folks from the black churches burning crosses and lynching people for being white?
.
Ah so they have to burn crosses and hang people to be racist? Thanks for the info and do you have any more "Rev". Hagee refernces they are great BTW.
One is a social remembrance of oppression and declaration of dedication to better one's social standing.
Sure it is ;)
Ah so they have to burn crosses and hang people to be racist?
No, but the KKK exists as an organization to oppress minorities. That is a far cry from the goals of the black church, which as a whole tends to be pretty middle of the road as far as religious institutions in this country go.
Honestly, if you're having trouble comprehending the difference between the black churches that have sprung up out of solidarity within the community as places for social gatherings and group catharsis, and a white supremacist organization that regularly engages in violence and acts of terrorism, you've got bigger problems than a disagreement on an internet forum.
Thanks for the info and do you have any more "Rev". Hagee refernces they are great BTW.
Hagee repeatedly refers to the Catholic church as "the great *****." He's also one of the religious figures spearheading the drive to open war between Isreal and Palastine because he thinks a) it means the end times have come and b) he's pretty sure it's going to kill all the Jews. This is a man whose endorsement McCain actively sought out to shore up his Theocon cred.
Sure it is ;)
How would you define it, exactly? It's not a militant organization, it's a social gathering. Just like the thousands of other churches across the country.
He knows he can just play the POW card and be forgiven.
I assume you have a lot of links to all this? And not just comments from the dailykos?
Honestly, if you're having trouble comprehending the difference between the black churches that have sprung up out of solidarity within the community as places for social gatherings and group catharsis, and a white supremacist organization that regularly engages in violence and acts of terrorism, you've got bigger problems than a disagreement on an internet forum.
Your argument is a moot point. I'm not discussing all black churches, just one church that is pro-black so if you have a problem keeping up with the argument then you have you've got bigger problems than a disagreement on an internet forum.
Your argument is a moot point. I'm not discussing all black churches, just one church that is pro-black so if you have a problem keeping up with the argument then you have you've got bigger problems than a disagreement on an internet forum.
I think it would probably be easier for me to follow if you were following any sort of logical progression with your comments. You're jumping from point to point and conclusion to conclusion. I understand that you're trying to make something cohesive out of disparate talking points that you've absorbed, but you're not really making any sense.
If you've got a problem with Obama's former church, it's just that; your problem.
For all of his faults (and he's got more than a few), Rev. Wright served this country faithfully in Vietnam, was part of the medical team that kept Pres. Johnson alive after his heart attack and has been an overall positive force in his community as part of the church, including pushing for higher rates of secondary education and better sex ed programs for his congregation. He's made a lifestyle of consistently helping people. You can try to paint that in a negative light, and you sure seem to be giving it the old college try, but the fact of the matter remains; you're smearing with nothing here.
If you're going to parrot pundits, at least pick the ones that can message properly.
The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.
He also went on to mention some ludicrous idea that the government gives people of color drugs to keep them down. Good deeds or not, this man is insane. He honest-to-god believes that the government is white, racist and murderous of people of color. Any good he has done has been pushed aside by his inflammatory commentary on this country and it's paler citizens. One who makes such statements does not have an agenda of peace. He blames whitey for all of the problems his people face. Drugs, HIV, well that's whitey for ya'. Sorry if I and others find this offensive and, well, moronic. A lot of us also find it problematic that the man who is trying to lead us associated with this crackpot for 20 years. Twenty. Years. Not as an acquaintance. Not as just a friend. As a spiritual guide trusted enough to preside over his marriage and pass his BS along to his (Obama's) children. As a man who was supposed to give the invocation at his announcement of his candidacy. He'd still be listening to this racist rhetoric on Sundays, too, if he didn't have an election to win. Unless, of course, Obama somehow couldn't see Wright for what he was until - coincidentally - he was slugging it out with Hillary. He only had 20 years to see it, after all.
For all of his faults...
I heard he made the trains run on time, too!
I heard he made the trains run on time, too!
I believe that was Hitler's* claim to fame. The fact that you know that shows you're educated. But being educated, you should know that any superficial similarities to that silly bugger should be considered just that. And Reverend Wright, even if he has any influence on Obama, won't be making Obama's decisions.
*or were you looking for Stalin or Mao Tse Tung?
I believe that was Hitler's* claim to fame. The fact that you know that shows you're educated.
Actually it was Mousilinni. But the fact remains it is rather rediculous to excuse a man for his calls to genocide and national seperatism over the past 20 years because he's done a few good works over that period.
And Reverend Wright, even if he has any influence on Obama, won't be making Obama's decisions.
No, but it's a very real possibility that Obama's decisions will be based somewhat on what Wright taught him and his family over the past twenty years. After all, even Michelle Obama has had more than her share of.. shall we say.. questionable statements in that direction.
Not me I would love to RPG or anything else with Paris.;)
Sorry, no contact at my tabletop session, not even a full-on sexplay right on the table.
I don't want to buy a new one again.
I assume you have a lot of links to all this? And not just comments from the dailykos?
I really hate The Dailykos. They are beyond biased and mostly useless in their information.
Here's something from Time.
Here he is on Leno.
Here is something on his infidelity.
Here is a report on healthcare.
Hereis a report on him comparing his POW experience with the Steelers.
Hereis one of many pages quoting his staffer's response to the Saddleback Church "cone of silence."
Hereis a quote of him saying how reluctant he is to discuss his experience.
Herehe is defending his taste in music.
Here he is talking about the Woodstock Museum.
Is that enough or should I keep searching for more? Note that I don't care about the accuracy of his statements (ABBA and the Steelers for example). I have just had enough of POW.
Everyone, Bob has already lost whatever small shred of credibility he might have previously had. You're not going to reach him with logic and reasoning. Forget him - he's no better than your typical hate-mongering troll.
This is one of the most interesting statements I have read in a long time. It brought a smile to my face. With all the sarcasm and vitriol coming from your keyboard, I'm the one called hate-mongering. Awesome.
I've had enough of his "I was a POW." He throws it around when it's convenient for him. Being a POW does not give him carte blanch to say or do whatever he likes without criticism. I used to respect him and wanted to vote for him. Now, I really hope he doesn't get elected. I think he will be one of the worst choices this country could ever make.
Even if we give him leniency with the Asian remarks, what about the other remarks that have nothing to do with his POW status? What about joking about killing Iranians with cigarettes? What about joking about bombing Iran as part of a song? What about his jokes about ****? What about his jokes about wife beating? He doesn't act very presidential. It's one thing to tell these jokes to friends with the understanding that they are just that -- jokes. However he does this when the camera or tape is rolling. He knows he can just play the POW card and be forgiven.
It is a unique experience, and one that is pretty awful. I think he overplays it. But this is actually a circumstance where it is directly applicable. As I said I am married to a women from south east asia. I don't like the term he used any more than you. But when we encounter vietnam veterans who use it, we are usually more understanding of them, than if some kid born in 1980 used the term. Also, it is pretty clear to me that McCain was using the term to refer to his captors. There are shades of gray when people use racial slurs. They are some of the most emotionally charged words people use to describe one another. And if a particular group, within a race or ethnicity has wronged you, it is understandable that one might use a slur against the entire race against that one group. In this case his VC captors. I am with you about him overplaying the POW card, but sometimes it actually fits.
The other examples you gave are going to need some links, because I haven't heard about them before. I am not saying you are lying, but lots of people have been taking politicians remarks out of context on the off topic threads lately. I think the key word here is joke. I have no problem with racial humor, dark humor, and off color humor. Even from a public official.
Good deeds or not, this man is insane.
Of course he's insane.
I never said that Wright wasn't cracked in the head, or that I didn't feel that Obama going to his church in the first place wasn't worrisome, though I think I feel that way for different reasons than most. The point I was trying to make is that a) Rev Wright represents the good within his community a lot more clearly and on better terms than does someone like Hagee who McCain has cozied up to in recent months and b) bigoted or not, his actions are in no way comparable to those of the KKK and trying to spin them that way is libel to make your head pop off.
As for the individual statements (HIV as a way to eliminate the black population, drugs for the same, etc), I know a lot of white folks who were around during the civil rights movement who hold the same beliefs. Not that they're right, but that whole period in American history didn't exactly engender positive feelings or rational views regarding the government's treatment of African Americans. As someone who was on the front lines of that (both in and out of the military), Wright has some residual distrust. Should he be talking about it from his pulpit?: No. But then I personally question the veracity of anything coming down out of the pulpit in the first place, so crazy talk about HIV and Drugs at least seems topical to me when compared to god sending bears to eat school children.
Is that enough or should I keep searching for more? Note that I don't care about the accuracy of his statements (ABBA and the Steelers for example). I have just had enough of POW.
I know he overplays the POW aspect, in that it relates to his performance as a candidate. But, really, if you were systematically tortured and threatened in a prison for several years, don't you think it would leave a mark on YOU?
Besides, I was looking for your rampant evidence of his flagrant racism, which you haven't provided.
On the other hand, here's some great Biden tidbits...
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent. Oh, I’m not joking!”
Delaware, he noted, was a “slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”
“There’s less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”
The rest of your diatribe is pure drivel. If you think Rev. Wright is a stand up guy that just tells me a lot about your character and so we have nothing more to say to one another about anything.
Given your repeated personal attacks, I'm thinking the same thing from the other side. Obviously you don't want to discuss anything, you just want your personal views reinforced. Sorry, I'm not here to do that.
I think that Rev Wright is a better person than Hagee, Robertson, Falwell or any of the other right wing clergy that McCain cozied up to. You obviously think otherwise, one has to assume due to your political leanings. Oh well, we believe different things. It happens.
And thanks for calling all religious people insane you’re a real piece of work. Now I can see how you cannot make a comparison between other racist organizations and Rev. Wrights values.
If I told you that I believed in a cat that moved the earth around the sun by batting it like a ball of string, and that each time a paw hit the earth it caused an earthquake, and that I had based that on something that was written thousands of years ago before we as a species had begun to apply science to such things, would you think I was crazy?
Let's face facts here; you think people who follow other religions are crazy. Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims. There are parts of their faiths that you don't consider to be "normal" or "rational." Don't get all high and mighty just because I, as someone who doesn't prescribe to any religion, views parts of all of them as making no rational sense.
Let's face facts here; you think people who follow other religions are crazy.
No I don't. I think they're wrong. There's a difference.
No I don't. I think they're wrong. There's a difference.
Not really, at least in this case.
Religious beliefs have a huge impact on one's world-view and approach to life. As such, beliefs that are (in your opinion) wrong lead to ill-informed and irrational decisions when it comes to applying them to one's actions and lifestyle choices. In effect, people of other religions are consistently making irrational choices without any sort of reason backing them up.
in·san·i·ty –noun, plural -ties.
1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
2. Law. such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.
3. Psychiatry. (formerly) psychosis.
4. extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.
Effectively, if you think other religions are wrong, you think the people following them are suffering from a form of psychosis. They are making irrational decisions that go against the things that you accept as fact.
Dude. We're done. Seriously.
By my personal standards, you're not exhibiting rational behavior. Belief, without any sort of proof, in a supernatural force that guides creation would be grounds for psychiatric examination if the force in question was visualized as dozens of purple men in a pink bunny costumes, I see no reason why we should have an exception for it looking like a bearded man in a toga.
This is interesting (not that I agree or disagree). After saying this and understanding that Obama, while out of Wright's church now, is still a believer, do you feel he falls into this assesment?
Wright may not be as bad as the KKK in terms of physical damage done, but he certainly is on par message wise. He preaches the same conspiracy theory hate laced type of BS. The whiteys of this country are his scapegoats. Just like the Jews were for Hitler. Thank god this man isn't nearly as powerful.
Also, comparing Wright to the religious idiots McCain associates with and then judging him to be "not as bad" is just as silly as saying something along the lines of "My candidate may have friends that raped 17 babies, but yours has friends that raped 19 so mine is ok." None of this kind of intolerant BS is ok.
So, Bats, you're actually saying.. what you're really saying here.. is that you think that anyone who ever disagrees with you on anything is obviously insane?
Dude. We're done. Seriously.
Nope, not saying that at all. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though.
What I'm saying is that if you've got a core set of unprovable beliefs (in this case, a given set of religious tenants and gospels), and you're basing your decision making on those beliefs, people who don't hold those beliefs are going to think you're crazy. Period. Making decisions and choosing your path through life based on your beliefs is fine, but those who hold different beliefs are going to see your actions as irrational and as such perceive you as acting in a manner that is not wholly sane. I don't see how that's really a revelation here.
Not that any of us are ever "wholly sane," but that's neither here nor there. Prescribing to a specific religion is basically choosing to subsume your own personal insanity (and we all have them) and accept the particular insanities, as perceived from the outside, of that religion. As someone who doesn't prescribe to any religion, I see those who do and who make decisions based on that to be acting irrationally, just as I'm sure they see me in my god-less state in the same light.
This isn't an indictment of anyone, whether I agree with them or not. It's a statement of fact about the human mind; we view those who think differently than us as being crazy. Whether that crazy comes from religion, reading Harry Potter, bungee-jumping, or whatever, it's still a perception of ourselves individually as the baseline and all those outside as being other.
But please, continue trying to twist my words. It's pretty entertaining, to be honest.
This is interesting (not that I agree or disagree). After saying this and understanding that Obama, while out of Wright's church now, is still a believer, do you feel he falls into this assesment?
I do. I would feel much more comfortable with a President that hadn't ever set foot in a church, or who had made a conscious decision not to let religious belief have an active impact on decision making (as it would fall much more in line with my personal feelings on the matter), but Obama's not that guy/girl.
Maybe one of these days we'll actually recognize the clause that states "no religious tests" for presidential candidates. Until then, I'm stuck with people who I disagree with on this level.
Wright may not be as bad as the KKK in terms of physical damage done, but he certainly is on par message wise. He preaches the same conspiracy theory hate laced type of BS. The whiteys of this country are his scapegoats. Just like the Jews were for Hitler. Thank god this man isn't nearly as powerful.
Also, comparing Wright to the religious idiots McCain associates with and then judging him to be "not as bad" is just as silly as saying something along the lines of "My candidate may have friends that raped 17 babies, but yours has friends that raped 19 so mine is ok." None of this kind of intolerant BS is ok.
I agree that what Wright has said is wrong. Period. I've never said anything along the lines of "it's ok that he says HIV was a government plot." I never will say that, because it's simply not true.
On the flip side, though, you've got to remember where this guy (and a solid chunk of his community and congregation) is coming from. I know about the Civil Rights movement academically, and through people I know (including my parents and the people I work with) who saw it and have told me the stories. I don't have any kind of a concept of what it was actually like, though, especially from the side of those being actively oppressed. In the same situation, I can imagine myself becoming incredibly angry, bitter and distrusting of virtually every form of government authority. I can see how (especially if I was given to hardline belief in the unprovable) things like HIV and the explosion of the cocaine market in the states could be attributed to the CIA and government attempts to wipe out the people it had helped oppress for so long. I can see where that line of thinking comes from. I don't agree with it, or think that it should be given the credence afforded to more rational notions of what happened, but it's not hard to see where that viewpoint develops as part of what was effectively a fight for personal freedoms.
In the case of people like Hagee, there's really no analog for their anti-whatever beliefs. They lash out at people who aren't like them (as has Wright, not claiming he's an angel here), but they never experienced the oppression or the need to actively fight to drink out of the same karking water-fountain as the people they're railing against. In their case, it's pure xenophobia. That doesn't necessarily make it worse, but it makes them a lot less relatable from my perspective and means that they formed their beliefs on the matter outside of any factual backing whatsoever. That makes them more dangerous and opportunistic, imnsho.
Again, not defending Wright. I'm just pointing out why I think he isn't the problem that people like Hagee and Robertson are. He's a survivor of the Civil Rights movement, and it's left it's emotional scars on him. They don't have any such reason for preaching hatred against Jews, Catholics or homosexuals.
Maybe one of these days we'll actually recognize the clause that states "no religious tests" for presidential candidates. Until then, I'm stuck with people who I disagree with on this level.
One, there is no such clause.
Two, you're being extremely dishonest. You already have said that you have such a 'religious test'... you're demanding athiesm.
And yes, you are defending Wright, who has openly called for genocide against Whites and Jews, and holding him to a much different standard then others. I can only assume it's for one of two reasons, either it's because he's black, or because he's 'liberal'. I'll let you choose which is less offensive for you.
One, there is no such clause.
... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Constitution says you're wrong.
Two, you're being extremely dishonest. You already have said that you have such a 'religious test'... you're demanding athiesm.
Again with the word twisting.
I just want atheism on the table. Until the day that happens (and the same is true for Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, etc), we're not observing Article VI.
And yes, you are defending Wright, who has openly called for genocide against Whites and Jews, and holding him to a much different standard then others.
I expect you have links for the genocide thing? Otherwise, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of crap.
On a related note; Empathizing and attempting to understand are a far cry from defending. I'm doing two of those things, but not the third.
I can only assume it's for one of two reasons, either it's because he's black, or because he's 'liberal'. I'll let you choose which is less offensive for you.
How about; "he's a fellow human being that's gotten a very bad rap for things that, while he should never have said them, aren't any worse than stuff that's being said on national television by evangelists across the country." If we're going to crucify pastors for hate speech, we're going to need a lot of crosses. I'm fine with that, but it's not a road to be traveled lightly.
The Constitution says you're wrong.
I'm saying there's no religious test. I've yet to see one from the government. The clause does not apply to the citizens of the nation, which is what you're implying.
I just want atheism on the table. Until the day that happens (and the same is true for Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, etc), we're not observing Article VI.
And it is. It just happens that the overwhelming majority of Americans dislike the messages of athiesm enough to disagree with you. But, again, there is no religious test from the government for the candidates.
I expect you have links for the genocide thing? Otherwise, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of crap.
How quick you get repeatedly personal. Wright sells the videos himself on his web-page, and there's plenty of fodder to be had. You should go check them out.
How about; "he's a fellow human being that's gotten a very bad rap for things that, while he should never have said them, aren't any worse than stuff that's being said on national television by evangelists across the country."
I have never seen any 'network evangelist' talk about eradicating the black race. I won't say that there aren't those who may harbour those views, but I've never heard of it coming out on the airwaves. If they had, I'm pretty sure that every major network newscast and newspaper and magazine would have it as major stories and the offender promptly drummed out of business.
Let's be real for a moment and leave out political leanings outside.
They've both followed people that hate. It isn't ok for either side and one is not better than the other. Civil rights or not, it doesn't take a genius to see that whites, asians, etc all smoke crack and get HIV. It's racist rhetoric that has no excuse and no amount of history can ameliorate the hate behind it. To me, the religious stuff is a wash. They both followed idiots. Hopefully it was for nothing more than politcal reasons. As disgusting as that is, it's still better than doing it because they believe what they hear. On some level, though, they must. Both have listened to these morons for too long to not have some of it rub off. Wright is no better than the rest. And the rest are no worse than him. They are equally despicable.
I'm saying there's no religious test. I've yet to see one from the government. The clause does not apply to the citizens of the nation, which is what you're implying.
That's not what you said. You stated that there was no clause. There obviously is one.
The people of the United States are free to elect whoever they want. That entire thread was more of an editorial on my part about the (imnsho) unnecessary weight we put on the necessity for attending a Christian church if you're going to hold office. For a country founded on the idea of religious freedom, that seems like something we should have gotten over by now.
And it is. It just happens that the overwhelming majority of Americans dislike the messages of athiesm enough to disagree with you. But, again, there is no religious test from the government for the candidates.
Again, you stated your point poorly, then.
How quick you get repeatedly personal. Wright sells the videos himself on his web-page, and there's plenty of fodder to be had. You should go check them out.
First, you're still just spouting.
Second, if you've got the info, if you've actually seen it with your own eyes, you should be able to link to it. The fact that you're not, especially given your desire to continue playing this up for points, means you haven't and you don't know where it is if it actually exists. Prove me wrong, post some links. Until then, this string of conversation is over.
I have never seen any 'network evangelist' talk about eradicating the black race. I won't say that there aren't those who may harbour those views, but I've never heard of it coming out on the airwaves. If they had, I'm pretty sure that every major network newscast and newspaper and magazine would have it as major stories and the offender promptly drummed out of business.
Ted Haggard used to rail against the evils of homosexuality on nearly a weekly basis. Hagee has a syndicated (if largely unwatched) show that distributes to local cable around the country on which he preaches about the evils of the Catholic Church ("the great *****"). Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (RIP) went on the 24 hour news networks after Katrina and blamed it on the homosexuals, pagans and sundry other non-white, non-christian groups that New Orleans was "harboring." None of those people (besides Haggard, for ironically unrelated reasons) has seen any sort of symbolic crucifixion for their statements.
Hate speech isn't limited to racial topics.
Granted, considering the last few responses you've given, and the tone that you've given them in, I think we're rapidly approaching an unscalable wall anyway.
Bat,
Let's be real for a moment and leave out political leanings outside.
That's the thing. I am, or at least I'm trying. I don't think it's possible to leave personal politics out of this sort of a discussion entirely, but I'm honestly giving it my best shot here. What I'm putting out at this point is my opinion as a human being, not as a Democrat, at least in as much as I can separate the two.
The bottom line for me is this; Wright's comments have no place in reasonable discourse and anyone who makes such statements should be called out on it. Wright has been (though little has actually been done about it besides using it to smear Obama, but that's another aside altogether), but the other purveyors of this stuff aren't just getting away with it; they're profiting from it. The Robertsons and Hagees of the world have built financial empires on bigotry and nobody is reacting to them in the same way. Why are we singling out this one preacher when there are others doing the same thing?
Wright's comments are incredibly ill-informed and should be held up and examined for what they are. The same, though, goes for all the other hate peddlers in this country. If we're going to crucify one, let's start building crosses for all of them. At least (in my mind, now) I can see how and why Wright formed his views, even if I vehemently disagree with them. To me, the others seem to be preaching against people who aren't like them out of reflex or spite rather than even the least amount of personal experience with the subject at hand. Those guys are just as bad (imnsho worse, but that's debatable as proven here), but they're not being strung up like Wright. If we're going to string one up, let's get them all; Conservative and Liberal, Democrat and Republican. Focusing on one of them and ignoring the rest is hypocritical at best and it's probably the reason this stupid Wright "issue" gets me so fired up in the first place.
If you can't see the difference between "I think homosexuality is a sin" and "All homosexuals should die", then I really don't think we're going to be able to continue any discussion.
Granted, considering the last few responses you've given, and the tone that you've given them in, I think we're rapidly approaching an unscalable wall anyway.
Link to Wright saying "whitey should die" or some analog. Until you do that, you've got no case here.
He's just railing against people that are different than him, just like the others. If there's a difference in scale, you need to show it. Otherwise one isn't any worse than the other.
Link to Wright saying "whitey should die" or some analog. Until you do that, you've got no case here.
I admit, I don't WANT to go to his site to get the links. You're free to do it. But I would no sooner go to Wright's site for info than I would a KKK site or a Jhiadist site. I pretty much put them all in the same boat.
I just think it's more telling that your continued defense of Wright, as weak as it is (well, some conversative white guys did it too!), is being done to continue to peddle Obama's superiority as a candidate.
I also think it's telling that you're colluding racial hate-speech with a single stupid comment against Obama-supporting-conspiracy-theorists-who-lie-in-their-parents-basements-and-play-Dungeons-and-Dragons.
Doesn't it occur to you how rediculous this entire line is? You want to demonize McCain over a stupid D&D related comment that he provably didn't even make, but you're going to defend Wright on the bases that there are other crosses to burn?
I admit, I don't WANT to go to his site to get the links. You're free to do it. But I would no sooner go to Wright's site for info than I would a KKK site or a Jhiadist site. I pretty much put them all in the same boat.
Then what you're saying is that you don't have any proof of what you're saying. Got it. You could have said that a page or two ago and we could have avoided this aside altogether, but better late than never.
I just think it's more telling that your continued defense of Wright, as weak as it is (well, some conversative white guys did it too!), is being done to continue to peddle Obama's superiority as a candidate.
How am I in any way talking about Obama at this point? I already said that I feel the fact he was in church in the first place puts him outside my wheelhouse as far as what I'd prefer in a presidential candidate.
This conversation ceased being about Obama quite a while ago. It turned into an examination of Wright's comments in context (both of his life and of those being made by other, whiter, preachers around the country), but I could care less about how it reflects on Obama as a candidate at this point. If Wright is the breaking point for any voters reading this thread, then they were probably just going to get fearmongered into voting Republican at some point between now and November anyway. This is a discussion about religious bigotry, not a candidate defense.
I also think it's telling that you're colluding racial hate-speech with a single stupid comment against Obama-supporting-conspiracy-theorists-who-lie-in-their-parents-basements-and-play-Dungeons-and-Dragons.
Doesn't it occur to you how rediculous this entire line is? You want to demonize McCain over a stupid D&D related comment that he provably didn't even make, but you're going to defend Wright on the bases that there are other crosses to burn?
I could care less what the McCain camp said about D&D and it's players; it was all spin and that's what politicos do. I said as much in the beginning stages of this thread (or one of the half-dozen others started over the same topic, I've lost track). The discussion has moved beyond what McCain's campaign said (and I still maintain that if he wants a reasonable shot at being president he should fire the lot of them, this incident not withstanding) and onto other topics. Try to keep up. ;)
I could care less what the McCain camp said about D&D and it's players;
Then you shouldn't even be in this thread.
Shoo.
Then you shouldn't even be in this thread.
Shoo.
I don't know if you've noticed, but no one has said anything about the McCain statement in several pages.
Will you be shooing everyone, then? Or just the ones you disagree with?
Edit: In fact, if I had to place the derail it would probably be your post about Biden. Well done.
I don't know if you've noticed, but no one has said anything about the McCain statement in several pages.
Will you be shooing everyone, then? Or just the ones you disagree with?
Edit: In fact, if I had to place the derail it would probably be your post about Biden. Well done.
Actually, no.. I think the thread as a whole could probably be just locked now.
Removed for size
I guess my only problem with this latest line of conversations is that Wright, to you, still comes off as somehow less bad. Whatever his reasoning is for his ideas, it's faulty. Yes, the rest should be publicly shamed as much as he has been. Truly. Honestly, I'd have no problem if they were all imprisoned for spreading the hate that they do. I guess all this comes down to is what we're willing to accept. We agree on the important stuff - they all suck and religion should not be part of this process at all. I just can't give Wright a pass or look at him less critically for any reason. And that's just a place we'll have to remain in disagreement. And that's fine. ;)
I know he overplays the POW aspect, in that it relates to his performance as a candidate. But, really, if you were systematically tortured and threatened in a prison for several years, don't you think it would leave a mark on YOU?
Of course it would. This man has said that he doesn't like to talk about it but then brings it up constantly and uses it as a shield from criticism. I have a problem with that.
Besides, I was looking for your rampant evidence of his flagrant racism, which you haven't provided.
You asked for links showing that he over plays the POW card. I have already provided links to his racist and sexist comments.
On the other hand, here's some great Biden tidbits...
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent. Oh, I’m not joking!”
Delaware, he noted, was a “slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”
“There’s less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”
I already said that Biden is a bigot. I think McCain is more bigoted but a bigot is still a bigot. However, like I said I am not voting for Biden (or Palin for that matter). I would hope that the one who is in charge can keep his subordinates in check and not allow bigotry to run the country. A very experienced politician who can't keep his mouth in check shows me that he may not be able to remain as balanced as he should.
A very experienced politician who can't keep his mouth in check shows me that he may not be able to remain as balanced as he should.
That's just a problem with Senators running for President. That's been true for a long, long, long time. (And, perhaps, is one good reason that we shouldn't even LOOK to Senators for Presidential materials. They tend to suck as Presidents.)
That's just a problem with Senators running for President. That's been true for a long, long, long time. (And, perhaps, is one good reason that we shouldn't even LOOK to Senators for Presidential materials. They tend to suck as Presidents.)
Then we're in for some trouble no matter who gets elected. I am hoping that either candidate is able to see past their own rhetoric and put the American people before the political parties. I doubt it's going to happen. I think Obama may owe some people favors due to his rapid rise to fame. I think McCain has no idea what the country wants as a whole and stubbornly sticks to flawed ideas much like our current President. The third party candidates don't really offer any hope of change either since they will find it difficult to get the partisan Congress to agree to much of their platforms (I guess you could say at least they'd be uniting the parties).
It also forced the GOP at the time to consolidate on real issues and get workable bills passed.
Granted, a less likely possibility is for Obama to get the presidency and then to have either the House or Senate to flip. That would result in much the same thing, which I think would be good for Americans overall.
If Obama gets Reid and Pelosi all together, we're going to have one hell of a partisan ride, and a LOT of promised 'revenge' bills through. How many people really want the first year of Obama's presidency to be nothing but constant indictments and investigations on Republicans at the cost of everything else?
If Obama gets Reid and Pelosi all together, we're going to have one hell of a partisan ride, and a LOT of promised 'revenge' bills through. How many people really want the first year of Obama's presidency to be nothing but constant indictments and investigations on Republicans at the cost of everything else?
Can't say I'd be happy about it. But I am less happy about the fact that no one is going to take responsibility for what I view as using the Constitution as toilet paper. I don't want revenge - I just want to make sure that any branch of govm't that tries to run roughshod of the supreme law of the land will be sure to draw back a nub.
I am still mad a Pelosi et al for not forcing this issue more. I don't want an impeachment, but I think we all require some sort of light to be thrown on what has been happening.
I am still mad a Pelosi et al for not forcing this issue more. I don't want an impeachment, but I think we all require some sort of light to be thrown on what has been happening.
The reason you won't see that is that Pelosi, et al, voted for all of this. For all the ranting and raving, most of the guys who are promising political revenge stood right alongside the 'evil Bush and cronies' in getting this stuff passed. They don't want to shine the light - they just want political leverage.
Ideally we would get a DNC congress and McCain as president.. that would be a deadlock and we would get kinda the same 'nomentum' that Clinton enjoyed (yes, I said 'enjoyed') in the early part of his presidency.
Ideally we would have opposing parties in charge. They do work to keep each other in check (sort of).
It also forced the GOP at the time to consolidate on real issues and get workable bills passed.
If only each party would do this all the time. There are too many important issues to deal with. Both parties tend to focus on irrelevant issues when they need a distraction. The Republicans are the target of this right now because Bush is in the White House. It is often forgotten that the Democrats do the same thing.
Granted, a less likely possibility is for Obama to get the presidency and then to have either the House or Senate to flip. That would result in much the same thing, which I think would be good for Americans overall.
I agree. I would like to see Obama in charge if we're discussing just the economy. Since WWII, with the exception of Carter, we have all prospered more with a Democrat in the White House.
If Obama gets Reid and Pelosi all together, we're going to have one hell of a partisan ride, and a LOT of promised 'revenge' bills through. How many people really want the first year of Obama's presidency to be nothing but constant indictments and investigations on Republicans at the cost of everything else?
If we would get Reid and Pelosi out of Congress I think we'd all be better off. Both are spineless whiners. I can't think of the last thing they focused on that wasn't an attack on the President. If they would focus on solutions rather than problems we could get past the failures. Since neither one seems to want to do that, they should both go.
If only each party would do this all the time. There are too many important issues to deal with. Both parties tend to focus on irrelevant issues when they need a distraction. The Republicans are the target of this right now because Bush is in the White House. It is often forgotten that the Democrats do the same thing.
Yeah, Newt gets a lot of 'hate' his way, but he was one of the most effective men in Washington in a very very long time. Clinton wouldn't have enjoyed nearly the succees he did without him.
I agree. I would like to see Obama in charge if we're discussing just the economy. Since WWII, with the exception of Carter, we have all prospered more with a Democrat in the White House.
Shockingly, I know, I have to disagree. Hillary was more of the Kennedy-model in economics. Obama not only is right out of the Carter playbook, he's even using some of the same people as advisors!
Since neither one seems to want to do that, they should both go.
Neither of them HAVE anything else, and that's the problem. It's hard to believe that after eight years under Bush, neither have proposed any reasonable 'health care' initative, or 'energy bill' initiative or anything. Yet, that's where we are. The DNC doesn't need a 'new president', they need new Congressional leadership.
Lovely. No wonder you think Wright isn't a bigot. To admit as much, you'd have to have half a clue as to what bigotry is, in which case might have to examine your own bigotry.
I'm so glad you took the time to read my subsequent explanations of my position before defaming my character.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. Please make an extra effort to do so so this thread does not have to be closed.
I'm so glad you took the time to read my subsequent explanations of my position before defaming my character.
You can't "explain" what you said away, and nothing you subsequently posted did so. Wright is a bigot - that has been proven, and no "explanation" from you or anyone else has hurt the argument in the least. (Most of the time, the quotes I provided seemed to have been completely ignored, and the link with references I gave probably not even followed, certainly not by Bob in any case, who referred to it as something it wasn't.) Calling people "insane" because they're religious is bigotry, no matter how you try to stretch the definition of the words. To avoid calling you names, we'll let the readers connect the dots.
Yeah, Newt gets a lot of 'hate' his way, but he was one of the most effective men in Washington in a very very long time. Clinton wouldn't have enjoyed nearly the succees he did without him.
I never liked Gingrich but I do have to admit that he was very effective. Regardless of politics, he at least honestly believed that he was making choices that would be better for America. I don't see the same thing from many others. Too many are pushing their own agenda, on all sides.
Shockingly, I know, I have to disagree. Hillary was more of the Kennedy-model in economics. Obama not only is right out of the Carter playbook, he's even using some of the same people as advisors!
And McCain is using fiscal conservative policies that have been demonstratedto be poor for the economy since WWII. Anytime a Republican claims to be a fiscal conservative I immediately ignore everything else they have to say about the economy. Fiscal conservatives have yet to grow the economy as well as the "tax and spend" liberals. Even the wealthy have done historically better under Democratic leadership.
Neither of them HAVE anything else, and that's the problem. It's hard to believe that after eight years under Bush, neither have proposed any reasonable 'health care' initative, or 'energy bill' initiative or anything. Yet, that's where we are. The DNC doesn't need a 'new president', they need new Congressional leadership.
I can't agree more. This is an area where Clinton would be great. She has a spine and is willing to get things done. I don't necessarily agree with everything she wants to do but at least it would be a move in a better direction.
I am disappointed that both McCain and Obama haven't been pushing their policies in the Senate (I know this isn't new for anyone running for office). If those policies are so great for America I would like to see them pushed now rather than in January. No matter how well anyone thinks we are doing, if we can do better then we should. Neither McCain nor Obama can honestly think that their policies are going to be followed once the oath is taken.
Anytime a Republican claims to be a fiscal conservative I immediately ignore everything else they have to say about the economy. Fiscal conservatives have yet to grow the economy as well as the "tax and spend" liberals. Even the wealthy have done historically better under Democratic leadership.
Tough to say that. You have to leave out Carter (as you said) and also a lot of the Johnson years... and then you have to leave out Reagan. Generally I've found that the only thing a President really can do, usually, is make economic situations worse than they are. At the end of the day, if I have to choose between Eisenhower and Carter, I like Ike.
I am disappointed that both McCain and Obama haven't been pushing their policies in the Senate (I know this isn't new for anyone running for office).
And again, this is why Senators suck as Presidents. Though McCain DOES have a bit of a senatorial leadership role on his pet issues (agree or disagree with his stances at your leisure). Obama... hasn't done sod all as far as I can tell. He had a couple of 'sign on' bills with some other Democrats, but that's it.
The only one with actual honest-to-God executive experience is the rookie from Alaska. Sad she's not running for the TOP spot.
Neither McCain nor Obama can honestly think that their policies are going to be followed once the oath is taken.
As I said, notice that neither have given up their Senate seats (and neither has Biden). This should be quite telling. I will, at least, give Edwards that much.