Thread: Voting McCain?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You have never seen me say "we" when it comes to things I am highly against. I always distance myself when it comes to things like stealing land from Inidians, slavery, the Tuskegee experiment, and manifest destiny. I avoid use of that word intentionally to illustrate that not all Americans are responsible for it. I do way "we" when it comes to the good things our country has done because it is stuff I support.

I think this is kind of a strange way to attribute whether or not "we" is a suitable word for such situations, but I understand more where you stand on it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are putting way too much into this small part of the big subject. I don't have a problem with Wright for saying "we". I just used that fact to help illustrate that he does blame America on the whole (which is now 300,000 people) and not just in part for 9/11 due to the Japan bombings and other stuff that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you see my point on that?

I simply don't agree with you on that. Because of the context of his words, I just don't believe he's blaming all of America on the attacks. I'm willing to admit that it's speculation on my part. I do think that you're in suitable enough position to say that, because of what he said, but I just don't believe that that's what he was doing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I have not called you anti-American, I have not hinted that you are anti-American, I have not said anything you could deduce to conclude that I think you are anti-American, and I have never thought of you as anti-American. I was using the word "we" to help help show that Wright hates the United States, not because of use of the word "we" alone. It is his connection between two entirely groups of Americans involved in two very unconnected acts of war and his other comments that form the big picture I am talking about.

I think there is a difference between feeling a karmic connection between past governmental atrocities and the 9/11 victims than blaming the victims or saying that they (the victims) somehow got what they deserved. I believe that the point was more than the U.S. government brought the attacks upon itself and that the karmic connection was the subsequent 'bloody hands' that came as a result of the attacks. Do you see what I mean? If I, as a teenager, went around killing the first born sons of other people and, as an adult, my first born son was killed by another, someone that believed in karma would say that I got what I deserved - the murder of my first born son. It would not be his position that my son was somehow deserving of his fate - only that my actions were the cosmic cause of that fate. That's how karma (and like concepts) works.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Most Americans say "we" when talking about anything involving the government or people in the context of being American. I am an exception. I am talking about a big picture, not just one piece of it. It is what Wright said beyond "we" that has me saying this stuff.

Yeah, I understand this part.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wright basically said America did this, so America got that completely unconnected (through anything other than some weird superstitious nonsense) punishment. When you think about that and his, "God damn America!" comment, you get a picture of how much that guy likes his country.

We're just still in disagreement on this I guess. I still don't believe it's so much his "hating his country" than it is his hating the people that run it and are representative of his country in a global context. Ultimately, it's much harder for me to give credence to this position, I know, because Wright's words can't easily be defended. I still don't think they were as black and white as they've been interpreted, though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

God damn the South! God damn the South because we have spoken out against necessary interrogation methods and that is why we saw so many of our people murdered in gang turf wars last year! (I'm just kidding. I don't really hate the South.)

That's not the same. "The South" isn't a term that's usually used by proponents of the South, when addressing some representative governmental entity - at least not nowadays. Whether or not it was, back in the days of the Civil War, I don't know. But, if it was, I would be much more understanding of the idea that someone saying "God Damn the South for [such and such]" may not have meant that they hated the Southern Region (given certain context), so much as it probably meant they hated the that representative government entity.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

P.S.- Thanks for the compliments.

Welcome.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We're just still in disagreement on this I guess. I still don't believe it's so much his "hating his country" than it is his hating the people that run it and are representative of his country in a global context. Ultimately, it's much harder for me to give credence to this position, I know, because Wright's words can't easily be defended. I still don't think they were as black and white as they've been interpreted, though.

I don't think that's quite right, either. While he may hold certain factions of government and business more responsible than others, and more than the average person, I don't think he was saying that there's someone we could crucify and make it all better. His intent seems clear to me: to call attention to the U.S.'s sins as a check on national self-righteousness and inspire his parishioners to work for change. While again I think he has some wacky ideas on who's to blame and how things went down, and obviously had ulterior motives in his more recent statements, I have to agree with his main point:

American individuals and institutions have made it clear by their actions--from the Indian holocaust and black slavery through the Spanish American War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Iran Contras, long disregard of AIDS, Rodney King, our conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jena Six--that the value of one's life is contingent upon the color of one's skin and the weight of one's purse, both at home and abroad. So long as we continue to act on that basis, groups and individuals who we declared our enemies before they were born will rise against us. I don't mean that it's the fault of individuals in the U.S. that Saudi extremists took down the Towers, just that we helped to create the world conditions where it could happen, and our actions since have been in keeping with what got us here, virtually assuring more 9/11s to come.

Karma is neither magical nor judgemental; it's simply a recognition that actions and their consequences are often similar in kind, and the extent of causal relationships radiating from any given action can never be known in full or with certainty.

Agreed. ^

[Edit: Btw, UM, I don't know if it's been stated in this thread or not but, what are your feelings on the video in the OP?"]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I don't think that's quite right, either. While he may hold certain factions of government and business more responsible than others, and more than the average person, I don't think he was saying that there's someone we could crucify and make it all better. His intent seems clear to me: to call attention to the U.S.'s sins as a check on national self-righteousness and inspire his parishioners to work for change. While again I think he has some wacky ideas on who's to blame and how things went down, and obviously had ulterior motives in his more recent statements, I have to agree with his main point:

American individuals and institutions have made it clear by their actions--from the Indian holocaust and black slavery through the Spanish American War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Iran Contras, long disregard of AIDS, Rodney King, our conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jena Six--that the value of one's life is contingent upon the color of one's skin and the weight of one's purse, both at home and abroad. So long as we continue to act on that basis, groups and individuals who we declared our enemies before they were born will rise against us. I don't mean that it's the fault of individuals in the U.S. that Saudi extremists took down the Towers, just that we helped to create the world conditions where it could happen, and our actions since have been in keeping with what got us here, virtually assuring more 9/11s to come.

Karma is neither magical nor judgemental; it's simply a recognition that actions and their consequences are often similar in kind, and the extent of causal relationships radiating from any given action can never be known in full or with certainty.

Once again, there is no connection between the bombings of Japan plus the bizarrely claimed invention of the AIDS virus and the 9/11 attacks. They are unrelated. The only thing he could have been possibly been talking about is some kharmic connection that holds all Americans responsible for everything their government has ever done, even before they were born. What you said is all the more reason the 9/11 victims should not have been connected to people in the government in 1945. The two are unrelated.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ok you didn't seem to understand me so im going to repeat myself one last time for you. Read slowly. I was saying in my previous post that america has messed with alot of people over the ages and left alot of them disgruntled.{when your a super power i guess its inevitable) and that americas policies overseas helped create the conditions necesary for people like the Saudi Hijackers to come about. The other guys Onero and Tao basically say something along those lines except they say it much better then I.

Don't be a dick. Just explain how what you just said counters the points I keep making to counter your point. Repeating yourself does not qualify.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Im im remembering right he listed a bunch of things america did and then he said god bless america no no nah nah god dam america for suchand such or whatever. anyway forget it. Im not about to go searching for it on youtube.

Yes, that's what he said. Now respond to my points about it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think there is a difference between feeling a karmic connection between past governmental atrocities and the 9/11 victims than blaming the victims or saying that they (the victims) somehow got what they deserved. I believe that the point was more than the U.S. government brought the attacks upon itself and that the karmic connection was the subsequent 'bloody hands' that came as a result of the attacks. Do you see what I mean? If I, as a teenager, went around killing the first born sons of other people and, as an adult, my first born son was killed by another, someone that believed in karma would say that I got what I deserved - the murder of my first born son. It would not be his position that my son was somehow deserving of his fate - only that my actions were the cosmic cause of that fate. That's how karma (and like concepts) works.

The attacks were not just on the government, and the government workers who were killed were not the same government workers who were involved in the acts he was talking about. Also, the government did not invent the AIDS virus. That claim adds another layer to the cuckoo factor involved in all of this.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I simply don't agree with you on that. Because of the context of his words, I just don't believe he's blaming all of America on the attacks. I'm willing to admit that it's speculation on my part. I do think that you're in suitable enough position to say that, because of what he said, but I just don't believe that that's what he was doing.

Then why does he take the deaths of people in the World Trade Center, passgenger airplane, and the Pentagon in 2008 and talk about the bombings of Japan and the claimed invention of the AIDS virus as if there is some kind of connection between the entirely different groups of people?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We're just still in disagreement on this I guess. I still don't believe it's so much his "hating his country" than it is his hating the people that run it and are representative of his country in a global context. Ultimately, it's much harder for me to give credence to this position, I know, because Wright's words can't easily be defended. I still don't think they were as black and white as they've been interpreted, though.

Wright is a Christian pastor, so the type of kharma he was talking about amounts to an act of God. That means he condones it. He was also talking about an attack on a lot of innocent people, yet he did not talk about them like they were innocent. He talked about them like they could just be called "America" and said they got what they got because of what "America" (same term) did in completely unrelated acts. It is just like when a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell type says something like, "New Orleans got flooded by Katrina because New Orleans did so much homosexual stuff. God damn New Orleans!" Imagine what those exact words would have sounded like. What would be the difference?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

IThat's not the same. "The South" isn't a term that's usually used by proponents of the South, when addressing some representative governmental entity - at least not nowadays. Whether or not it was, back in the days of the Civil War, I don't know. But, if it was, I would be much more understanding of the idea that someone saying "God Damn the South for [such and such]" may not have meant that they hated the Southern Region (given certain context), so much as it probably meant they hated the that representative government entity.

The parallel is that an entire region is blamed because of what just some of its people did. Even if you were president of the South, my satirical comment would still stand.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Once again, there is no connection between the bombings of Japan plus the bizarrely claimed invention of the AIDS virus and the 9/11 attacks. They are unrelated. The only thing he could have been possibly been talking about is some kharmic connection that holds all Americans responsible for everything their government has ever done, even before they were born. What you said is all the more reason the 9/11 victims should not have been connected to people in the government in 1945. The two are unrelated.

I spelled it out plainly enough. All of the actions I listed are part of a pattern of behavior by which the U.S. tells the world, both outside its borders and within, that all lives are forfeit to the interests of our Anglo-Germanic Protestant overlords. In the Middle East in particular, our foreign policy may as well have been written by Jack Chick. We've given both our friends and present and future enemies in the region every reason to doubt our commitment to freedom, liberty and justice, and every reason to see us as an invading imperial power. Self-aggrandizing dicks like bin Laden will arise regardless, but we don't need to warm up the crowd for them by leaving a trail of chaos and destruction.

Our activities in the Middle East are more pertinent than AIDS or Nagasaki to 9/11, but it all adds up to an image abroad as a wealthy, self-important thug--a mafioso. How much harder would it be for the world's Osamas if we sent the doctors and teachers before the missionaries and salesmen? If we built the infrastructure and met the people before we took the oil and dropped the bombs? If we devoted half our military budget and personnel to global (including domestic) outreach, education and infrastructure?

What if, for a start, we simply elect to our highest office someone other than the same half dozen wealthy, white, ex-colonial dynasties?