nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:36 pm
Look at the date on your link is from 4 days ago. TUCC changed their mission statement page along with deleting other references a few months ago.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:36 pm
Ok, to wrap this up, because it's descending into pointlessness, there's nothing inherently wrong with Obama belonging to a black church. Check. His pastor wasn't preaching racism every Sunday. Check. Obama disagrees with some of his pastor's most controversial statements and has explained his relationship with him. Check.

There's nothing left to this thing.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:37 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Look at the date on your link is from 4 days ago. TUCC changed their mission statement page along with deleting other references a few months ago.


Where did YOU get it?
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:39 pm
I have a screenshot of the page as it was - along with some other stuff that has conveniently disappeared.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:41 pm
Great, I'd love to see it. Please do post it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:43 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I have a screenshot of the page as it was - along with some other stuff that has conveniently disappeared.


I've looked it the churches' webside via way back sides - yours stored site must be very, very old.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:46 pm
If I have time to upload it somewhere and then post it here I will. But you can probably find it easily enough if you try. I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed it since it's been talked about for months.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:50 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I have a screenshot of the page as it was - along with some other stuff that has conveniently disappeared.


I've looked it the churches' webside via way back sides - yours stored site must be very, very old.


According to the waybackmachine, the website has been changed in June 2003.

When did Obama launch his campaign?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:51 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Remember that Trent Lott spoke probably hundreds of thousands of words as a Senator though, 99.9% of those not racist or un-PC in any sense. At StromThurmond's birthday party, he made a comment about the country being better off if Thurmond's presidential bid had been successful. Thurman was a white separatist at the time of his presidential bid many decades before, however, and Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader for making a single casual reference in support of a 90 year old colleague. No amount of Lott saying that Thurmond's platform didn't even cross his mind at the time could save him.


You're mixing up the situations again, Foxfyre. The words came out of Trent Lott's mouth. He had to defend his own words. Wright's words did not come out of Obama's mouth yet you demand him to defend himself as if they did. If Strom Thurmond had been made to resign because it was his party where Trent Lott said that, then you would have a valid argument.


Obama was asked point blank if he supported the racist and anti-American rhetoric on those clips of Pastor Wright's sermons. He said that he did not. He said he had never neard them. He said he was unaware of them until all this stuff just surfaced. He said if he had known about them he would have quit the church. His supporters believe he is credible.

Trent Lott made an innocent quip to salute a 90-year-old man. He said he wasn't thinking of the issues embodied in that campaign at the time and meant nothing by the remark other than his desire to compliment an elder colleague. His enemies did not believe he was credible.

Different circumstances yes. But words from the mouths of both persons. So which is more credible. A senator who said he wasn't thinking about issues in a campaign that had occurred more than a half century ago? Or a senator who says he was unaware of racist and un-American rhetoric preached on at least 17 different occasions during a time the senator was an active member of and heavy contributor to that church while having a very close relationship with that pastor?

Its all a matter of credibility Butrfly. And yes, I am bringing observations of a definite double standard into it just because it appears to definitely exist.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:57 pm
Here it is in pdf form:

http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf

OldEurope - your link didn't work for me. No - I only found out about it sometime last year and went to the website (TUCC's) then to see what it was all about. When I revisited later (months - not years) the mission page was altered.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 03:58 pm
maporsche wrote:
Nimh, I think you mentioned a few days ago (and probably 30 pages back, which is why I'm not quoting your post) about how I used the worst examples of Obama supporters (i.e. Roxxxanne, Cyclops) as proof that Obama supporters in general (you, Soz, freeduck, Butterfly, others) are all crazy, arrogant, gnats that I just want to swat away.

Anyway, you're right, I did do that and it wasn't on purpose. I think I mentioned in the past that I only know 3 Obama supporters in real life (I'm sure I know more, but I only know 3 that have talked to me about it) and 2 of those 3 very much remind me of the worst posters here, and the other one is very civil (but not outspoken like the others). I guess it's always the most outspoken, arrogant, snobbish posters that stick out (this is true of republican, bush supporters as well)

I guess this is an apology for the generalizations that I've made against those less-outspoken Obama supporters.

No problem and thank you! In political debate, it's hard for the civil and down-to-earth voices to get through, because the shouters, well, shout. And online, thats true to the nth, as demonstrated here every day. You just hope that most readers learn to sift through the noise.

Mind you, goes both ways. Online politics forums itch my noise too - my instinct is to respond more rudely, badgeringly and loudly than I would ever in real life. It sucks, really; doesnt exactly bring out the best in you. But then "in real life" I dont know anyone who's this interested in politics, so here I am anyway.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:02 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
OldEurope - your link didn't work for me.


Hmmusta messed it up. Well, here is the link to the waybackmachine. Just enter the the address, and it will show you the cached versions of the page. Seems like some major redesign has been done in June 2003. Not much since, though. At first glance.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:10 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Iran probably trains both. Not much of a gaffe.

That you believe that Iran (Shiite theocratic state) probably trains Al Qaeda (Sunni fanatics) doesnt really surprise me; but yeah, I was seriously taken aback to find that John McCain apparently believed so.

And no, it wasnt just the one time gaffe; he made the same assertion before - several times.

Now General Petraeus - he knows better.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:12 pm
I found it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070105102317/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:16 pm
old europe wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
OldEurope - your link didn't work for me.


Hmmusta messed it up. Well, here is the link to the waybackmachine. Just enter the the address, and it will show you the cached versions of the page. Seems like some major redesign has been done in June 2003. Not much since, though. At first glance.


Really? I found a ton - mostly done in 2007.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:18 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
old europe wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
OldEurope - your link didn't work for me.


Hmmusta messed it up. Well, here is the link to the waybackmachine. Just enter the the address, and it will show you the cached versions of the page. Seems like some major redesign has been done in June 2003. Not much since, though. At first glance.


Really? I found a ton - mostly done in 2007.



Ah! I was looking at the mission statement.... Thanks.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Steele is an acknowledged expert and authority on race in America.

Only among conservatives, I'm afraid. Elsewhere he isnt taken very seriously, not currently.

And thats not a question of a black man not being able to hold conservative views without being ridiculed. I think Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are accepted by many in the center and even on the left too as smart people with a lot of expertise, even if one doesnt agree with their POV or has a problem with how they've enabled Bush's disastrous policies.

People like Steele or Sowell? Not so much. Conservatives are pretty much the only people who accept them as "experts and authorities on race".
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:21 pm
From DailyKos:

Obama's speech against the war in Iraq...Hint he hits both McCain and Hillary. It was given in North Carolina today and well worth the long read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/114032/682/108/479934
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:27 pm
I was just thinking about Andrew Sullivan's words last night after Obama's speech. He thought it was "Christian." He denounced the words of his pastor but forgave the man. He didn't throw him under the bus like many would do in his position. Yes, I think that would be what Sully meant.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:27 pm
nimh wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Iran probably trains both. Not much of a gaffe.

That you believe that Iran (Shiite theocratic state) probably trains Al Qaeda (Sunni fanatics) doesnt really surprise me; but yeah, I was seriously taken aback to find that John McCain apparently believed so.

And no, it wasnt just the one time gaffe; he made the same assertion before - several times.

Now General Petraeus - he knows better.


Well, I don't want to get bogged down in arguing this with you in this thread. Read this, though.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/captured_documents_show_iran_w.asp
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 644
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 10:11:59