OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

[garya505 2]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I watched it live. I thought it was an excellent speech, one of the best I've ever heard.

And yet, from your statement above, it seems that at least on certain passages of that speech he didn't quite get through to you.

Do you mean will I vote for him? No.

That's obviously not what I meant. What I meant was that you didn't understand what he said.

I understood it just fine. Maybe you can give us your interpretation of it.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Boy, youre like those old school guys that went to jail and got all this knowledge in the Penn cause they had nothing but time to read books, so they come out of jail using bug words and talking politics

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

[nana_356 0]

Not for the same reasons, but I don't think this speach puts us any further forward than we were yesterday. I guess he had to address the whole pastor business but I am not sure how that becomes an excuse to accuse everyone who doesn't support him as having a racial reason for not doing so. I know I don't, and I am sure there are many others who don't support his candidacy for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with race. All I am seeing is more politics from a man who is no different from any of the other career politicians that he is always trying to distance himself from.

I wish I could see this differently but I don't. I still think he's a good politician but I don't see him as being a Ghandi figure and I keep feeling as though this is the image I am being sold, hence my discomfort. Did I miss the practical solutions he is proposing as well?

Over the last few days I have been trying to explain race relations to my "foreigner" wife (with limited success) so try to help her understand the Rev Wright thing. Obama has just repeated in his speech a lot of what I was trying to explain.

Understanding where Wright came from explains his words but as Obama said, it doesn't excuse it. Obama's right in that, but it still doesn't explain why he would have a 20-year relationship with a Pastor who he doesn't agree with.

Let me start be saying that my best friend parents have been going to this church for 26years, they hit stumbles in their marriage and started going to counseling at the church, well long story short when her mom would go alone she was having an affair with the pastor.

My point is I have never been to a church where they discused politics views, just cause he went to the church for 20 years doesnt mean he knew the man completely.

[garya505 2]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

[nivesito 0]

Hmm....this person should be a president. I don't think so, sorry.

"McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s, called Keating Five, in the context of the Savings and Loan crisis of that decade.[77] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets.[77] Subsequently, in 1987, McCain was one of five Senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, which was by then insolvent and being investigated for making questionable efforts to regain solvency; at Keating's request, McCain met at least twice in 1987 with federal regulators to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln.[77]

On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[78]

Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators were charged with any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

Whats quite interesting is your ability to show forgiveness and understanding for Obama. Where is this same talk of Bush? Obama said he wasnt there in the pews at the time, then in his speech said he was. Also subjecting children to this type of hate speak in church is crazy. It is what it is. Lipstick on a pig is what comes to mind.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation.

What?

[garya505 2]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

Firey rhetoric is fine with me. However, I think there's a difference between black religious leaders saying, for example, that blacks need to fight for their own rights and self-determination because whites don't want them to have it, or whites are too prejudiced, or society is controlled by whites, or whites just don't care, and the kind of distorted political reality that Wright promoted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

Firey rhetoric is fine with me. However, I think there's a difference between black religious leaders saying, for example, that blacks need to fight for their own rights and self-determination because whites don't want them to have it, or whites are too prejudiced, or society is controlled by whites, or whites just don't care, and the kind of distorted political reality that Wright promoted.

All depends on the language they use to express it doesn't it?

[garya505 2]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

Firey rhetoric is fine with me. However, I think there's a difference between black religious leaders saying, for example, that blacks need to fight for their own rights and self-determination because whites don't want them to have it, or whites are too prejudiced, or society is controlled by whites, or whites just don't care, and the kind of distorted political reality that Wright promoted.

All depends on the language they use to express it doesn't it?

Words matter. Like Obama said, "Just words?"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

Firey rhetoric is fine with me. However, I think there's a difference between black religious leaders saying, for example, that blacks need to fight for their own rights and self-determination because whites don't want them to have it, or whites are too prejudiced, or society is controlled by whites, or whites just don't care, and the kind of distorted political reality that Wright promoted.

All depends on the language they use to express it doesn't it?

Words matter. Like Obama said, "Just words?"

Sure they do - I'm just wondering why no-one is talking about Black Liberation theology and looking at its other proponents. Actually I'm not really wondering why - the why is obvious.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Man I feel like I need to open a thread called "Ask a Black Person"

There seems to be alot of lost knowledge going on here and I am assuming it is because...once again...people do not understand Black culture. This is partly the fault of Black Americans bit more so the fault of those who haven't taken the time to understand our history.

The things that Wright said are his words...they are also the beliefs of many Black Americans. Shocker isnt it?! Well its true, but its also true that many of us do not feel what he is saying. However people we need to understand and realize that their are still many Black people living in this country who experienced som hard hard racism...killings, lynchings, segregations, N words galore, discriminations.....these people are my parents...my grandparents....this stuff didnt happen that long ago! So we have a generation that has become an angry product of those times. What can I do....just never speak to my grandparents...ignore all that they have told me...tell then shut up and get over it? Heck no!!! What I do is understand why they vemenetly feel this way and I make it my goal to try to continue changing the future generations...and trust me its changing.

As far as Obama...he's in this same situation. And in actuality he may not even understand it as much as many Black Americans do. The thing is Obama is culturally NOT a Black-American..his Black father was from Kenya, Africa......totally different continent people totally different culture than American Blacks. Obam was raised by an American White woman so in a sense he doesnt even have the stories that other BA have been hearing from generations before them. I just think people are putting him on "trial" for something he really cannot control. I think he is doing a GREAT job trying to explain it all but it also takes a little effort from the rest of the American people to get out there and search for their own knowledge and understanding when it comes to the Black American, because truthfull Obama cannot have all the answers.

I hear what you're saying, but Obama had no choice of grandmother and he had a choice of pastor.

Thats easier said than done. With the church my parents went to, it was all white. If you were a black person in that church, there would have been at least a couple members who would have make you feel unwelcome.

BTW, My first wife was black and was raised in Jackson, MS. We were together for 7 years and Married for 5 years. So to say that I don't know the mindset of the Black American Culture is not entirely true. I understand quite a bit about it.

My church that I attend has Blacks, Asians, Eastern Europeans and people from all over the world. Not one of them feels uncomfortable. Our church is a missionary evangelical church with a worldwide organization of churches. We sponsor people to come to America all the time. We meet them at the ship docks to bring them to our church whenever a ship is in town.

At my church not a word is spoken about politics, as it would be inappropriate in such a place. Also it is illegal to speak of such things and keep the tax exempt status of a church. We do not divide people, we are all united in love, prayer and worship. This is what is appropriate.

Obama chose his church and his pastor because he was saying the message that he wanted to hear. That is why you go to your church to be filled with a message. This message he was hearing was racist and full of hate. How can he be the great uniter with this in his heart?

He gave that speech because he had to, not because he is courageous. But it also destroyed the idea that he transcends race.

I am not ashamed of what is said in my church. No need to distance myself for what is taught.

http://www.apostolicfaith.org/

We say it in every corner of the world. Look for yourself. The message that is taught in our church is, Jesus the Light of the World.

http://www.apostolicfaith.org/aboutus/branch.asp

So spin it anyway you want it is still the same. Obama attended a church that teaches their children to be racist and to hate.

[kaydee457 13]

As Obama said, he could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother. What he's saying there is that he feels a same attachment or obligation.

I don't think that's what he said at all. Re-read what the man said. And this time try to understand it too.

I read that line and again it still states the same thing, nothing changed.

"He could no more disown Wright than disown his own white grandmother"

Can you give me another meaning to this that I and others are not getting

I think he simply meant that his grandmother as well as the Reverend Wright as well as others are people that helped form the very person that he [Obama] is today. Neither of them is perfect and without mistake (as no person is perfect and without mistake), neither of them he agrees with fully all of the time but both had nonetheless a valuable influence on shaping the person he is today. He can't go back and change that. Nor does he want to. I think that is what he is saying. Actually, he said just that in unmistakable terms:

"These people are a part of me."

That has nothing to do with your assertion that he feels the same attachment or obligation towards both. Nothing at all.

I agree with your interpretation, and that IS what I meant by attachment or obligation. For example, my father was an alcoholic but he still helped make me who I am. He taught me honesty and integrity, and this I will pass on to my son, if God allows me. But that was my father, on which I had no choice.

The fact that Wright is a part of Obama because Wright helped make him who he is today doesn't change the fact that he chose Wright for this role in his life. And like I said, I believe Wright is an extremist and I don't think that if his political views represent those of mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

From what I've heard - that sort of firey rhetoric is pretty common to Black Liberation Theology.

The question is if Wright alone should be tagged as an extremist or an entire branch of theology - including large church congregations. I can see the convenience in the former, but the latter is a problem however you look at it - because it opens up a wider debate than I think many people are willing to have. And it would take the focus off Obama - which is also not what some people want.

Hmm, I don't think that the kind of language that Wright used is commonplace at all.

Although I cannot cite any specific sources to the contrary of what you say, this very topic has been bantered about for the past couple of days by the media, and as far as I can tell those journalists, and program guests weighing in on this topic, that do attend black churches say that this is not commonplace at all.

I'm of the impression the concensus is that Wright's taken the dialog to the next level.