or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › If Obama is the Democrat against McCain this could ruin his campaign.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If Obama is the Democrat against McCain this could ruin his campaign. - Page 3  

post #81 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Let me demonstrate this for you:

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System.

I don't see where Wright is implicated in that, but regardless, that was no more offensive than affirmative action is. Switch around affirmative action in the same way you did here, and what you just wrote is offensive for the same reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Do you get that he's NOT ADVOCATING the content of character, rather he's fixated on skin color?

Race-conscious, indeed.

There's nothing wrong with that. Obama's post-race message has broader appeal, which is why he stands the greatest chance at effecting real change.
post #82 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I don't see where Wright is implicated in that, but regardless, that was no more offensive than affirmative action is. Switch around affirmative action in the same way you did here, and what you just wrote is offensive for the same reasons.

Yes, affirmative action *is* offensive. See, you're coming along.

Also... you don't think Wright is "implicated in that" - he's the SENIOR PASTOR and it is posted on his church's website...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #83 of 312
So Obama has a blog post on the Huffington Post to address this. That's modern politics, I guess. Maybe we should invite him to start a thread on PoliticalOutsider.
post #84 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

So Obama has a blog post on the Huffington Post to address this. That's modern politics, I guess. Maybe we should invite him to start a thread on PoliticalOutsider.

What makes you think candidates are not already doing this my friends?..ehem... I mean uh... BRussell?

A couple points from the link...

Quote:
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.

He did what he should in this matter.

Quote:
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church.

People who raised questions were not just "stylistically" opposed. They weren't just "making crap up." The source himself says that he should have had to answer these questions and he did so resoundingly.

I bet Fellowship feels that much better about his vote now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #85 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What makes you think candidates are not already doing this my friends?..ehem... I mean uh... BRussell?

John, is that you?
post #86 of 312
I had not read those quotes from Hagee before.

But seeing them has made my respect for him go up, since I completely agree with most of them.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #87 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

People who raised questions were not just "stylistically" opposed.

That's pretty much all it is.

Wright wouldn't raise any red flags if he turned down his rhetoric a few notches while still conveying the same ideas. "God damn America" = "America is failing people on the margins of society," "white rich European-descended people control everything" = "Minorities are not yet established in the power structure of our country," and so on. I don't think what he's saying is disagreeable at all. It's only how he says things.

Now, please note that he's not being racist or sexist towards anyone, so let's not think we can take racist and sexist statements of McCain supporters and clean them up. You can't shine shit as they say.
post #88 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're telling me they don't?

Nope. There are, for one thing, 3 billion people in Asia. Asia has many major markets.

You may consider this a red herring to your argument, so I'll humor you directly:

The entry of the black american into the privileged class is a rather new phenomenon, but it's not a scant phenomenon. Our generation has plenty of black representation in the upper echelon. If it's not obvious to you, give it ten years until we in our mid twenties end up in our mid-thirties, higher up on the totem pole as happens with age. Anyone thumping around on old black power agenda is way past his time, and it doesn't help that successful black are labeled as "oreos" by this same, rancorous, envious, hate-filled crowd.
Cat: the other white meat
Cat: the other white meat
post #89 of 312
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


People who raised questions were not just "stylistically" opposed. They weren't just "making crap up." The source himself says that he should have had to answer these questions and he did so resoundingly.

I bet Fellowship feels that much better about his vote now.

I think he handled it very well... I saw a MSNBC video stream (not sure if it is mac friendly) but on my PC I saw a video of him being interviewed on Keith Olbermann and I thought he answered very well on this subject.

MSNBC Video Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...40119#23640119
4 mins 52 seconds into the clip he reads my mind and makes the point I have been making in this thread.

Obama himself actually contrasted his views / methods / politics as the future with those of his pastor as being due to his (Obama's pastor) being a product of the 60's and reflecting sometimes a different way of politics.

I thought to myself:

Wow... Obama is reading my mind here....

Some quotes from his huffingtonpost entry:

Quote:
"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Thank you Barack Obama

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #90 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

There does seem to be a disconnect between Wright's inflammatory rhetoric and Obama's approach. You'd think he'd attend a church with a preacher more like MLK, right? I can see that. But I think this is just a style problem, though. It's really the way Wright says things sometimes that causes problems, rather than something wrong with the ideas he's trying to convey. His rhetoric is caustic and narrowly appealing whereas Obama's is hopeful and as broadly appealing as possible.

I'm just now reading through all of this, and maybe this has been pointed out already, but MLK wasn't exactly all hearts and flowers. His too-little-read speech "Beyond Vietnam" is a good example of where he was near the end (this speech was delivered a year to the day, I believe, before he was assassinated):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Luther King, Jr

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

More as I read through this monstrosity of a thread.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #91 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The claim that one can be a member of a church, listen to the pastor, write a book based off one his sermons that is the cornerstone of his entire campaign, and then claim that selective views of that pastor just don't matter is a little ridiculous to say the least. I can bang on this when I get a little time but how about we start with the fact that Obama wrote a little book called "The Audacity of Hope" which was based on a sermon of Pastor Wright.

If that isn't a meeting of the minds, a sharing of thoughts and values, I don't know what else would be.

Preposterous.

I can write a book based on one of Paul de Man's essays. That does not mean that I subscribe to everything Paul de Man ever wrote or said.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #92 of 312
I wonder what else HRC has in her bag of political knuckledusters.


midwinter -- The Wire is, hands down, no bullsh!t, the most unf***ing believably well written series I have seen yet.

Greek tragedy all over the place.

They got Stringer!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #93 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I wonder what else HRC has in her bag of political knuckledusters.


midwinter -- The Wire is, hands down, no bullsh!t, the most unf***ing believably well written series I have seen yet.

Greek tragedy all over the place.

They got Stringer!!

Oh yes indeed they got Stringer. PM me and let me know where you are in it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #94 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That's pretty much all it is.

Wright wouldn't raise any red flags if he turned down his rhetoric a few notches while still conveying the same ideas. "God damn America" = "America is failing people on the margins of society," "white rich European-descended people control everything" = "Minorities are not yet established in the power structure of our country," and so on. I don't think what he's saying is disagreeable at all. It's only how he says things.

Now, please note that he's not being racist or sexist towards anyone, so let's not think we can take racist and sexist statements of McCain supporters and clean them up. You can't shine shit as they say.

So you are saying Obama condemned them him because of his style?

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Preposterous.

I can write a book based on one of Paul de Man's essays. That does not mean that I subscribe to everything Paul de Man ever wrote or said.

Of course it doesn't but then again, you haven't belonged to an organization lead by and espousing the values of Paul de Man for twenty years now either. That changes the stakes a bit.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #95 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you are saying Obama condemned them him because of his style?

Obama is playing politics (but our politicians would never do that, right?)

post #96 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Obama is playing politics (but our politicians would never do that, right?)


They would, but then Obama isn't running as a typical politician. He is running as an above the fray, once in a generation change agent.

Anything that makes him look typical or ordinary radically lowers his appeal.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #97 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Of course it doesn't but then again, you haven't belonged to an organization lead by and espousing the values of Paul de Man for twenty years now either. That changes the stakes a bit.

No it doesn't. Belonging to a church does not make him an advocate of everything preached in that church. Writing a book inspired by one of the preacher's sermons does not make him responsible for everythingi that preacher said.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #98 of 312
I had a crazy thought. This thing about looking at weird shit your pastor said is a common tactic that liberals use to show how crazy conservatives are. Even some of the specific comments are similar, like blaming America for 9/11 (although it's the gays rather than racism for the evangelicals). I wonder if some conservative Christians might feel a bit of sympathy and identification with Obama being asked to diss his pastor. It also has the added benefit of making it clear he's not a Muslim.
post #99 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I had a crazy thought. This thing about looking at weird shit your pastor said is a common tactic that liberals use to show how crazy conservatives are. Even some of the specific comments are similar, like blaming America for 9/11 (although it's the gays rather than racism for the evangelicals). I wonder if some conservative Christians might feel a bit of sympathy and identification with Obama being asked to diss his pastor. It also has the added benefit of making it clear he's not a Muslim.

Oooooh. That's interesting.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #100 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

No it doesn't. Belonging to a church does not make him an advocate of everything preached in that church. Writing a book inspired by one of the preacher's sermons does not make him responsible for everythingi that preacher said.

Obama went further than simply noting he wasn't an advocate for those views. He claimed he was not even aware the pastor held such views and had spoken on them.

Which is starting to look like another line of bullshit.

It is one thing to say that you belong to a church for twenty years and happen not to agree with certain positions taken by that organization. It is quite another to claim a complete lack of awareness of those positions. You keep changing the goalposts here. Obama claims lack of awareness, not just lack of agreement or refusal to advocate for a position.

You don't have to agree with the pastor of your church or with the leader of any organization to which you happen to belong. However to belong to that organization for 20 years, to listen to the leader of it weekly and then in the end claim a complete ignorance of what that leader was speaking about in certain areas just stinks of bullshit.

So do you have to agree with everything Paul de Man wrote or said? No of course not. However write your thesis on him, teach a class on him for twenty years and then try to get me to believe you were ignorant about him, and that doesn't fly.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #101 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I had a crazy thought. This thing about looking at weird shit your pastor said is a common tactic that liberals use to show how crazy conservatives are. Even some of the specific comments are similar, like blaming America for 9/11 (although it's the gays rather than racism for the evangelicals). I wonder if some conservative Christians might feel a bit of sympathy and identification with Obama being asked to diss his pastor. It also has the added benefit of making it clear he's not a Muslim.

I think it's one thing to cite when a pastor twists off -- but another to not cite the apology.

The whole context is screwy too, since by any rational standard, even an atheist wonders what he/she/it did to "deserve" a disaster. So it's something of a coy game to act shocked that someone might come to the conclusion that America was being punished on 9/11 -- it's simply slagging on someone's philosophy, and essentially the same sentiment as the "we had it coming because Ronald Lucifer Regan sold Stinger missiles to Bin Laden".

I hate guilt-by-association/gotcha/Bulverism games.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #102 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama went further than simply noting he wasn't an advocate for those views. He claimed he was not even aware the pastor held such views and had spoken on them.

That's not quite true. I just watched a couple of the videos of Obama talking about this, and what he says is that when he started running for president a year ago, he had heard about controversial things that Wright said. I even remember that little controversy a year ago over Wright. Obama also said that some of the things that were being played in the last few days he hadn't heard before. And he says that he never heard Wright say anything like any of that when he attended.
post #103 of 312
Another thing -- I think the blasphemy-from-the-pulpit thing might be the bigger issue for many of teh Fuhndees.



another one:

Quote:
from a hotel in Acapulco:
The manager has personally passed all the water served here,
a dry cleaner in Majorca:
drop your pants here for best results.

"Super Piss," a Scandinavian product to unfreeze car locks.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #104 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


So do you have to agree with everything Paul de Man wrote or said? No of course not. However write your thesis on him, teach a class on him for twenty years and then try to get me to believe you were ignorant about him, and that doesn't fly.

I would imagine that that right there would be problematic for the people who had been teaching and using de Man's theories for ages only to find out shortly before he died that he'd collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

People wrote theses about him. People taught courses on him. People were ignorant of this.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you guys found something substantive to attack Obama on, finally. Obama's preacher said something ostensibly bad about America! Attack!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #105 of 312
Ford had some problems In Brazil, Pinto is a slang term for “small male appendage.”

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #106 of 312
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ter/index.html


" Controversial minister off Obama's campaignStory Highlights
Barack Obama's former pastor has said 9/11 attacks were brought on by America

Obama distances himself from comments, calls them "appalling"

Minister also has said Hillary Clinton has easier time because she is white

Obama camp says minister no longer part of campaign "


" Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.

But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments "



Like I and others have said this is a nonstory.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #107 of 312
Let's keep this in the context of an extremely intelligent politician, with great Q factor, cultivating a public image.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #108 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I would imagine that that right there would be problematic for the people who had been teaching and using de Man's theories for ages only to find out shortly before he died that he'd collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

People wrote theses about him. People taught courses on him. People were ignorant of this.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you guys found something substantive to attack Obama on, finally. Obama's preacher said something ostensibly bad about America! Attack!

I could care less about what his preacher said. However I never bought into the mythology that Obama is a once in a generation, above the fray politician who brings to the table something no one else ever could. What sort of double standard are you keeping that discovering Obama is just like every other politician is now an attack?

Obama eats. Obama poops. Obama has sex with his wife.

"Dude that is a total attack. Messiahs don't do those things."

I don't expect him to raise the dead and thus noting he can't isn't an attack.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #109 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I could care less about what his preacher said. However I never bought into the mythology that Obama is a once in a generation, above the fray politician who brings to the table something no one else ever could. What sort of double standard are you keeping that discovering Obama is just like every other politician is now an attack?

Obama eats. Obama poops. Obama has sex with his wife.

"Dude that is a total attack. Messiahs don't do those things."

I don't expect him to raise the dead and thus noting he can't isn't an attack.

Huh? Obama is being attacked for something someone else said and then there's a ton of logical stretching made to put this one guy's thoughts in Obama's head. You want to attack Obama, then do it for something he said or did, not for something someone else said or did. Hell, the guy's even been fired from his position in the campaign.

But apparently that's not enough.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #110 of 312
That would be a lot more convincing if Evangelicals weren't routinely mocked and attacked on this board for something Robertson or Falwell said.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #111 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That would be a lot more convincing if Evangelicals weren't routinely mocked and attacked on this board for something Robertson or Falwell said.

Huh. And I was under the impression that we were mocking Robertson and Falwell and those who express agreement with their wackier views. I don't recall anyone on this board ever saying that simply because some politician is close to Robertson that he must, therefore, share in those extreme views.

Regardless, this repudiation game is old.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #112 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I like it.

It works because what the Pastor's saying at its core isn't really objectionable. If he said something like "Catholicism is the Great Satan" or "Islam and Judaism are false religions" and Obama actually sought the endorsement of a person with those views, then it's not so easily explainable away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"God D*mn America."

Not objectionable.

Mmmkay.

Thread over.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #113 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thread over.

It's not like he was walking around screaming "God Damn America" just, you know, for no reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Crazy Preacher

No, no, no, God damn America, thats in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #114 of 312
Tracy Morgan will be the new V.P., or at least he should be.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #115 of 312
Nobody else saw that on SNL? It was hilarious.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #116 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's not like he was walking around screaming "God Damn America" just, you know, for no reason.

That's a red herring. It certainly wasn't all he said. How would you justify "United States of KKKA?"

Quote:
Huh? Obama is being attacked for something someone else said and then there's a ton of logical stretching made to put this one guy's thoughts in Obama's head. You want to attack Obama, then do it for something he said or did, not for something someone else said or did. Hell, the guy's even been fired from his position in the campaign.

But apparently that's not enough.

First, Obama is being attacked not over isolated comments, but over a pattern of anti-American, racist ranting by someone he had a long relationship with. In other words, its his judgement that's in question. If one did not believe this things, how could he stand silently and continue to associate with the man?

As an ancillary point, this is not the first time we've heard questionable comments come from someone close to Obama. Do you call Michele Obama's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" line? At the time I, like many others, gave her a mulligan on that one and accepted her explanation of what she really meant. But taken with other bits of information (such as several passages from Obama's first book), one begins to question exactly who Barack Obama is in terms of what motivates him and what racial attitudes he has. I don't believe he's a racist per se, but he definitely has some anger going on, so to speak. Taken with his Pastor's comments and his church's doctrine, it opens up a larger issue.

Now, is the man resigning enough? No, not at all. He wasn't just some campaign worker. He was Obama's Pastor for 20 years. He married them. He baptized their children. He was their spiritual and presumably moral shepherd. Obama knew full well what his Pastor's rantings and beliefs were. He was present for at least some of them. It defies all credibility to assume that Obama could just sit there in quiet disagreement for all those years. Why would someone do that? I mean, my ex-wife and I left churches because we didn't like the speaking style of the Pastor. We left churches because we didn't agree with their beliefs. Not one those Pastors ever said anything 1/100th as outrageous and inflammatory as Pastor Wright did.

From my perspective there are two possibilities:

1) Obama disagreed with his Pastor but said nothing for 20 years. The begs the question...why stay?

2) Obama agreed with some or all of what Wright said.


Of course, I haven't even addressed the most important issue: These were not just comments from one man. In some respects Obama belonged to a racially charged church:

Quote:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Can you imagine the outcry if I replaced the term black with "white?" How far does this "commitment to Africa" go? Apparently beyond one's love and respect of this country.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #117 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course, I haven't even addressed the most important issue: These were not just comments from one man. In some respects Obama belonged to a racially charged church:

Is that like an alternative fuel source?

Cool, man.
post #118 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Is that like an alternative fuel source?

Cool, man.



It's not emission free though. It produces clouds of anger.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #119 of 312
Why is it wrong, in any way, and especially why is it "un-American" to say that America has been a real embarrassment to anyone who realizes that:

1) "Muslim" does not equal "terrorist".
2) America is MUCH worse off because Bush attacked Iraq than they would be if he hadn't (and we predicted as much).
3) America is STILL a very racist place for many people, and it's really difficult to compete on an equal playing field if you belong to a minority.
4) America is highly favoring rich over poor during each and every year of each Republican administration during my lifetime, yet even poor Americans keep voting for Republicans!!!!
5) Every time there has been a presidential scandal involving something other than sex or money (i.e. about IMPORTING HARD DRUGS OR SELLING WEAPONS TO NON-ALLIES TO FINANCE A COUP or LYING TO START A WAR THAT ENDED UP KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE NOT TO MENTION AMERICAN SODIERS and possibly bankrupting the nation in order to take a strategic position for oil and politics), it has been a REPUBLICAN in office, yet we KEEP voting for REPUBLICANS!!!!????

It is not rocket surgery people. Stop being apologists and ignoring the fact that we HONESTLY have something to be ASHAMED of. Michelle Obama and Wright have felt as ashamed as I have. There are times when America has been so stupid that anyone who is HONEST can say "God damn America!"

Of course, it's not convenient that it's a Christian pastor who said this, and "God damn" can be interpreted as a pretty serious statement, and he should have known better, but, as Shawn pointed out, what the f*** does that have to do with Obama?

I was ashamed when Carter couldn't handle the Middle East oil crisis (even though oil prices rose less during Carter's administration than they did during GWB's administration -- explain that). I was ashamed when Carter couldn't deal with the hostage crisis. I was ashamed when Reagan introduced economic policies that would end up hurting the poor and reversing much of the progress seen since the 1950's, making the rich richer and the poor poorer ("trickle down" economics). I was ashamed when Reagan's administration fell back on lies and pretense of ignorance when it was basically proven that they sold weapons to Iran to finance the contras, incredibly likely on Reagan's orders and unquestionably not without his knowledge (unless he really was just a figurehead). I was ashamed with Bush Sr.'s "status quo" administration when there was so much that needed to be fixed (which fortunately Clinton fixed). But then I was embarrassed with Clinton's terrible "don't ask don't tell" policy, and with his stupidity with regard to his "indiscretions". Then every day of Bush Jr's administration has been a disaster. What a fucking moron whose administration made fucking moronic decisions, for less than honorable motivations. Again, more than reversing the progress made under the Clinton administration. And to be re-elected? God Damn America for that, if anything!!!!

Again, do we have something as a nation to be proud of? OF COURSE! But for many of us, we don't settle for "we've done some things right". We expect more from what we grew up to respect as a beautiful country founded on a great concept. And for us not to speak out against what is not good enough... well, that would be un-American.

Now, on to your post...

Quote:
2) Obama agreed with some... of what Wright said.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

Not all. Just like he said. Face value.

And "omygod why didn't Obama say anything to disagree with Wright for the last 20 years [before last week]"?

How the hell do you know he didn't!!!???

Before the 2003 Democratic Convention did you know who the hell Barack Obama was? I didn't. He may have disagreed with Wright on many occasions. It just wasn't his responsibility to publish those things.

Let me ask you... do you (as a non-Presidential candidate) always publish things about the people you disagree with that you've grown up with? If you have a teacher who claims we should "nuke Iran" did you publish writings about how you disagree with them?

There is no "guilty by association here".

Wright is one man. Obama is another. Obama did speak out as soon as the issue came up and said he disagreed with Wright. Endy story.

I claim, with all honesty, that in criticizing America, I love America more than you do, SDW. A lot of people would agree with me there, even if they disagree with some of what I've said above.

SDW, let me make an analogy. Let's say your father is an alcoholic. Do you: 1) Claim your father is a great man out of (blind) respect for him; or 2) Tell him what he's doing is wrong and he needs help?

This country is like an alcoholic father who needs help. It doesn't mean we love this country (or father ) any less. By seeking help, we're showing that we actually love him enough to make the hard and honest statements that need to be made.
post #120 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why is it wrong, in any way, and especially why is it "un-American" to say that America has been a real embarrassment to anyone who realizes that:

1) "Muslim" does not equal "terrorist".

Just some context -- if you apply the WBC® standard to teh Muzlahms, yes it does.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › If Obama is the Democrat against McCain this could ruin his campaign.