Obama Embraces a Bigot and a Fanatic, the Rev. Wright

mysterman
I know your views from Abuzz .
My simple Q is this

How about electing Obama as President
and allowing the condi boild rice as vice?

Is USA as matured as India?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

And there is nobody alive in the US today that remembers being "chained to slave ships and beaten in cotton fields".
So why should those of us who were not alive then and had nothing to do with it be held responsible?

Using that logic, there is nobody alive in the US or Mexico today that remembers the Battle of the Alamo or the Texas Revolution so does that mean the Republic of Texas is non-existant and all Mexicans are not to be held responsible for minding the border? Should all be welcomed back into Mexican Texas where they can build for themselves because nobody alive remembers those events and doesn't want to be held responsible?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Parker Cross wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Obama disagrees with those statements.

It is easy to disagree a year after the fact, and 20 years after first hearing such sentiments, when you are in a tight race for an important election and such revelations profoundly damage your candidacy. Have I missed something? Or is Eliot Spitzer's apology a true show of honesty as well. He obviously wanted to come clean to the world, as did Obama.

It hasn't been twenty years since he's heard those sentiments. More like two weeks.

Kicky, you truly believe that in 20 year of such a close relationship this vitriol did not surface anywhere? If you do you are naive, blinded, stubborn, or all three.

No I don't believe that. But I also don't believe that it is the only thing this guy is, like you would have us believe. I have family members who have spouted racist nonsense too, but that isn't the totality of who they are. I disagree with them vehemently, but I don't define them by their worst qualities.

Obama describes Wright as his mentor and guide. What does that say about the thinking Obama considers valuable?

Obama subjected his children to some of the worst racist hate speech any of us have heard for quite a while. And he exalted the speaker as a revered authority figure and role model.

He also donated generously to the racist organization. Remember that 'black liberation theology' is at the core of TUCC's purpose.

Quote:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.

from http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Racism isn't some condiment or side dish at TUCC. It's the main course.

You can't with a straight face tell me that Obama has been unaware for the past 20 years of the racist views held by his close friend, mentor and pastor , and that he only became aware of them 2 weeks ago.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Using that logic, there is nobody alive in the US or Mexico today that remembers the Battle of the Alamo or the Texas Revolution so does that mean the Republic of Texas is non-existant and all Mexicans are not to be held responsible for minding the border? Should all be welcomed back into Mexican Texas where they can build for themselves because nobody alive remembers those events and doesn't want to be held responsible?

So according to you if we conclude that we are not responsible for historical truths then they don't exist. Your argument is nonsense on the face of it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

He also donated generously to the racist organization. Remember that 'black liberation theology' is at the core of TUCC's purpose.

Quote:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
from http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Racism isn't some condiment or side dish at TUCC. It's the main course.

You can't with a straight face tell me that Obama has been unaware for the past 20 years of the racist views held by his close friend, mentor and pastor , and that he only became aware of them 2 weeks ago.

You make a good point. Clearly Obama had poor judgment not realizing that this was going to be a problem. He wanted his black identity, and a large segment of black culture has clung to racism and the victim identity. There was no way for Obama to participate in black culture without associating with people and organizations who work to perpetuate it.

But Obama did not need to be part of this church, many blacks have assimilated into the wider culture and walked out of the old school black churches. Here is one:

Quote:

JEREMIAD
He's Preaching to A Choir I've Left

By Jonetta Rose Barras
Sunday, March 23, 2008; Page B01

I've known preachers like the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., former pastor to Sen. Barack Obama. Like many of them, he no doubt sees his congregation as full of victims, and thinks that his words will inspire them to rise out of their victimhood. I understand that.

Once upon a time, I saw myself as a victim, too, destined to march in place. In the 1970s and '80s, as a clenched-fist-pumping black nationalist with my head wrapped in an elaborate gele, I reflected that self-concept in my speech. My words were as fiery as the Rev. Wright's. And more than a few times, I, too, damned America, loudly, for its treatment of blacks.

But I turned away from such rhetoric. Is it time that Wright and other ministers do, too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102742.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Obama stayed in a Black church that time has passed by, that is now more part of the problem than part of the solution. He made a mistake. Billery, the masters of divide and conquer racial politics, will make some hay out of this. The super delegates will put Billery down, but not before they bloody Obama good.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Using that logic, there is nobody alive in the US or Mexico today that remembers the Battle of the Alamo or the Texas Revolution so does that mean the Republic of Texas is non-existant and all Mexicans are not to be held responsible for minding the border? Should all be welcomed back into Mexican Texas where they can build for themselves because nobody alive remembers those events and doesn't want to be held responsible?

So according to you if we conclude that we are not responsible for historical truths then they don't exist. Your argument is nonsense on the face of it.

Reread what I was responding to, hawkeye.

0 Replies

There is a whole lot more to that article that Hawkeye posted than the one quote he excerpted. I encourage everyone to go to the source to read it. It is a long one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102742_pf.html

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
And there is nobody alive in the US today that remembers being "chained to slave ships and beaten in cotton fields".
So why should those of us who were not alive then and had nothing to do with it be held responsible?

Using that logic, there is nobody alive in the US or Mexico today that remembers the Battle of the Alamo or the Texas Revolution so does that mean the Republic of Texas is non-existant and all Mexicans are not to be held responsible for minding the border? Should all be welcomed back into Mexican Texas where they can build for themselves because nobody alive remembers those events and doesn't want to be held responsible?

Thats one hell of a stretch on your part, but since you apparently didnt understand my post I will try again.

There is nobody alive today that was a slave in the US, period.
Therefore, what our ancestors did over 150 years ago has no bearing on us today.
To continue to blame your anger on something that happened over a century ago is irrational and just plain wrong.
To expect me to feel guilty for what happened so long ago is just plain stupid.
I didnt do it, nor did anyone in my family.
Dont hold me responsible.

As for the example you gave, lets examine that for a minute.
You said...

Quote:

Using that logic, there is nobody alive in the US or Mexico today that remembers the Battle of the Alamo or the Texas Revolution

You are absolutely correct, there is nobody alive today that took part in those events or that has firsthand knowledge of them.
So, those events, while interesting from a historical perspective, have absolutely no bearing on life today.
The events happened, nobody denies that, but to continue to live your life today based on your anger for events that happened 170 years ago is absolutely insane.

Quote:

so does that mean the Republic of Texas is non-existant and all Mexicans are not to be held responsible for minding the border?

Actually, the independent country called the Republic of Texas does not exist.
Texas became part of the US in 1845, ending the Republic of Texas as an independent country.
Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, Germans, Kenyans, etc. All people are responsible for "minding the border" of their own country and not illegally entering another country.
So I have absolutely no idea what you meant by that.

Quote:

Should all be welcomed back into Mexican Texas where they can build for themselves because nobody alive remembers those events and doesn't want to be held responsible

Not wanting to be held responsible for events that happened before you were born and having no knowledge of those events are not the same thing.
We all know that Texas won its independence from Mexico, but that doesnt mean we are responsible today for that decision made 170 years ago.
We all know that slavery existed in this country, but that doesnt mean that we are responsible for it today.

Acknowledging that something happened is not the same as being responsible for it happening, especially when that something happened long before you were born.

0 Replies

Parker Cross wrote:

Give me the lunatic.

Grab ye a mirror.

0 Replies

We're up to 11 pages, there have many contributors, and yet, even with this humongous elephant moving about the room, no one but BlueFlame has acknowledged its presence. Everyone else is gently stepping around both the behemoth and its nasty piles of dung.

A great deal of what Pastor Wright stated is factual. What is it about this that makes everyone so scared to face it. Inquisitive people want to know the facts. What's so scary about facing the facts and trying to right the wrongs?

Instead everyone has their little dance with the elephant, all the while desperately looking around for the next person whose turn it is to cut in. No one looks in the elephant's eyes.

No one but BlueFlame.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

A great deal of what Pastor Wright stated is factual. What is it about this that makes everyone so scared to face it. Inquisitive people want to know the facts. What's so scary about facing the facts and trying to right the wrongs?
No one but BlueFlame.

Yeah, where are those dirty so and sos in the government that invented HIV for the sole purpose of genocide against people of color? Lets get to the bottom of it and hang those guys from the highest tree.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

JTT wrote:
A great deal of what Pastor Wright stated is factual. What is it about this that makes everyone so scared to face it. Inquisitive people want to know the facts. What's so scary about facing the facts and trying to right the wrongs?
No one but BlueFlame.

Yeah, where are those dirty so and sos in the government that invented HIV for the sole purpose of genocide against people of color? Lets get to the bottom of it and hang those guys from the highest tree.

You're up, Okie. The elephant awaits. Don't step on his toes, he just hates that.

0 Replies

okie, everything Wright says is backed by evidence that would be fascinating if presented in a calm and rational interview before the nation. There are reasons for all his charges some of which I presented here. Man made AIDS is a difficult subject to approach. But no one would dare approach it without first having some proof that led them. The fact that in 1969 the DOD did ask for and receive funding from Congress to create a biological weapon that would attack and destroy the human immune system is in the Congressional record. That money trail has been traced and that's what leads to rumors of AIDS being a man made disease. The charges did not appear out of thin air spread by America haters. They appeared out the request for a biological weapon that would attack and destroy the human immune system. Is it the appropriation request you deny? Because that evidence is set in concrete. There are real scientists who have followed the money trail. Whether their conclusions are correct or not remains to be seen. They are legit scientists and researchers. Their evidence gets into some detail. Names dates and places. Pulling a see, hear and speak no evil attitude is not acting like a grown-up. Study and research and curiosity is in the best interests of national and international security. Certainly there is a heap of evidence to sort through for anyone curious enough about what is and is not true. But outright denial reminds me more of Sgt. Shultz from Hogan's Hero's than anything else. This sort of denial is usually backed by no study. "The real origin of AIDS The AIDS virus 'was created by the United States government at Fort Dietrich in Maryland, a biological warfare laboratory in building number A550 in the P4 lab'." That kind of statement peaks my curiosity. I wont dismiss it offhand without looking deepr. http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/nov/152001.htm

0 Replies

blueflame, are you one of the group of conspiracy theorists that think Bush brought down the towers?

I suppose you would believe anything if it fit your template of hatred?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blueflame, are you one of the group of conspiracy theorists that think Bush brought down the towers?

I suppose you would believe anything if it fit your template of hatred?

I see you bought a whole chain of tickets. Okay, no one else is dancing so you can have another go. Anything to avoid having to discuss the actual issues. Remember what I said about not stepping on his toes, Okie.

0 Replies

Among the things you begin to dig up with a little searching the internet:
I pulled these quotes from the following:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html

Perhaps that gives us a hint as to where Obama came up with his mantra for "change?" It is anyones guess as to what he has in mind, ultimately, as part of his "change," but perhaps we can draw some ideas from this black liberation theology, on which Wright and I assume the church is claiming to base an important part of its teaching, which goes back to this James Cone character.

0 Replies

This link says this about Cone, a key proponent of the black liberation theology, which Obama's church and pastor's teachings are largely based upon, and which we can logically assume Obama has bought into to a significant extent:

http://www.campusactivism.org/akreider/essays/libtheo1.txt

"According to Cone, Marxism had been neglected because it has
been associated with racist whites (Cone 273), viewed as a fringe
ideology, associated with Russia in a time of anticommunism,
viewed as atheist and a direct threat to Christianity, and seen
as overly sectarian (Cone 176-178). In face of these negatives,
Cone's interest in Marxism was renewed through contact with Latin
American theology (Cone 177). From there he began to recognize
the validity of the Marxist critique, agreeing that Christianity
had been used as an opium of the masses (Cone 181). Furthermore
he affirms that black liberation theology is in clear support of
the poor: "All proponents of liberation theology contend that the
masses are not poor by accident. They are made and kept poor by
the rich and powerful few." (Cone 393) Finally Cone directly
affirms black theology and being compatible with Marxist
political values: "No one can be a follower of Jesus Christ
without a political commitment that expresses one's solidarity
with victims." (Cone 187)"

What we need is a good reporter sitting down with Obama, connecting the dots, and asking him point blank just where does he stand in regard to the dots. The dots are Obama's longstanding support and relationship with his pastor and church, and their connection to black liberation theology and its inherent beliefs, as explained by the James Cone.

Actually, looking into this more has helped explain alot about why he says what he does and what may motivate the man in terms of core beliefs. All of this is only an educated guess, but the dots do seem to connect. I have contended the voters, including me, have known very little about the character and core beliefs of Obama, and I think that has been true, but as we begin to learn more, it is of little comfort to say the least.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Among the things you begin to dig up with a little searching the internet:
I pulled these quotes from the following:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html

Perhaps that gives us a hint as to where Obama came up with his mantra for "change?" It is anyones guess as to what he has in mind, ultimately, as part of his "change," but perhaps we can draw some ideas from this black liberation theology, on which Wright and I assume the church is claiming to base an important part of its teaching, which goes back to this James Cone character.

Okie, Cone's book is a, if not the, major basis for Obama's church. It's required reading by members of TUCC. Obama made a similar statement in his race speech about the need to "change society". I don't think many of his supporters will be willing to discuss this much, but it will definitely be scrutinized in depth if he's the nominee. As it should be.

0 Replies

okie, like it or not both Rev. Wright and I take a mainstream position on 911. You aint hearing it on network or cable news but, "Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation
May 22, 2006, Yahoo! News/PRWeb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4

A new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated. The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up." I fully support new, real 911 investigations. And if you do not then you take the minority position. Nothing wrong in that but dont pretend I take a radical position.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/060523newsarticles

0 Replies

nappyheadedslut[/quote wrote:

Okie, Cone's book is a, if not the, major basis for Obama's church.

Bullshit.

Quote:

It's required reading by members of TUCC.

Bullshit.

0 Replies

Obama Embraces a Bigot and a Fanatic, the Rev. Wright

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know