Obama '08?

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The worst slime in congress regularly wear the flag

I didn't say that only the slime wore the pin. BTW, do you wear one.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

The fact is from everything I have been told, those sound bites are an anomaly.

Maybe you should quit listening to Obama cheerleaders and check the facts for yourself.

TUCC's website cites James Cone as a foundational influence for the church's vision :

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

When questioned by Sean Hannity on Fox, Wright immediately cited Cone as his authoritative source for the 'Black Theology' and 'Black Values System' that he preaches, not just occasionally but as the main course at his church.

Quote:

from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html

The views of James Cone and Black Liberation Theology are NOT some anomaly, Rox.

They ARE the foundational racist views of TUCC and of Jeremiah Wright.

Cone, you will recall, is the same 'theologian' that states:

Quote:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone

You can wish for Wright's racist views to be swept aside as an 'anomaly', but it ain't so, Rox.

They are what define Wright, who Obama called 'my mentor, my advisor, my close friend and pastor of 20 years.'

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I am curious, does cyclops also believe the government invented HIV as a way to commit genocide against people of color?

Oh, I doubt it. But we don't really know where HIV came from. And the AA community has had a history of these things being done to them. So I understand their paranoia.

Wright has exploited that paranoia by deliberately instilling the belief that whites aren't just prejudiced against blacks, but whites are trying to kill them.

By preaching this to young black men, he's fostering a terrible sense of victimhood that has serious consequences for both whites and blacks.

Yet the Left sees nothing wrong with this.

Better for Black men to KNOW what they're up against than for bigots, to attack them! I raised 2 Black Men and I told them exactly the same thing!
I don't consider my self on the left, I consider myself, educated to racism and I know it when I see it. We've been victimized by some whites, all our lives. Just let a Black man walk into a room of whites and see what happens! Everything stops and he is scrutinized and made to feel as though he doesn't belong. It's happened to me all my life

Thank you for your candor, Teenyboone. Honesty is essential.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
The fact is from everything I have been told, those sound bites are an anomaly.

Maybe you should quit listening to Obama cheerleaders and check the facts for yourself.

e
I have checked the facts for myself and there are tons of audio and video of Wright out there, which I personally have not had the chance to listen (except a few minutes) but certainly the haters like Hannity and those who use him as a source have and, so far, nothing but the original few minutes that were played on continuous loop has been uncovered.

Read Audacity of Hope[/] and Obama's other book if you want to know the soul of Barack Obama.

0 Replies

If republicans think that they can hold Obama accountale for the words and actions of another person because of their closeness/influence, then republicans would have held Bush accountable for Enron, Iraq, GitMo etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If republicans think that they can hold Obama accountale for the words and actions of another person because of their closeness/influence, then republicans would have held Bush accountable for Enron, Iraq, GitMo etc.

T
K
O

Unfortunately for Obama, the burden of proof regarding what he does and does not believe is his, not mine and not Republicans, as he is the one spending 20 years around a white-hating, America-hating demagogue.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
If republicans think that they can hold Obama accountale for the words and actions of another person because of their closeness/influence, then republicans would have held Bush accountable for Enron, Iraq, GitMo etc.

T
K
O

Unfortunately for Obama, the burden of proof regarding what he does and does not believe is his, not mine and not Republicans, as he is the one spending 20 years around a white-hating, America-hating demagogue.

Keep typing, this racist rhetoric, then READ what he really espouses. When you take 1 sentence sound bytes, out of several speeches and stitch them together, you get what you hear on Faux News, intentionally, to inflame those whites and others, unsophisticated to know the speeches have been edited, you get the message you want to send. You attempt to ruin the reputation of a man of God, because you never intended on supporting the Black Man running for President, anyway!

Racism begins at home! As a little girl, walking home from the parochial school I attended, from K-8th grade and a barefoot, runny nosed, dirty blond kid, rushes out doors, to call you the "N" word, don't think that I kept walking. I dropped my books on the ground and beat the "schitt" out of him! He never ran out to call me that, again, either!

Black city kids, were taught, to not take name calling, lightly! I went to confession, did my penance, but prepared to repeat it, if necessary. At the age of 8, I knew not to attempt to sit at a lunch counter, drink from the "whites only" water fountain, or use their rest-rooms, which is why I lived in a parallel universe, with a father who fought for democracy in Italy,
but couldn't enjoy it, at home! To sit here and read the blatent racism exercised here, is tragic and is one of the reasons, you see so much racial tension. The UN-fairness, of it all, but you go to your "made for you" jobs and if you see one Black person, getting one more nickle than you, you scream, foul! You think Black athletes are overpaid, arrogant, etc., when there are more white athletes, making more, for doing less! I've heard these complaints on and off the job!

Maybe this link will work, so you can see for yourself, what the "real deal", is! http://www.tucc.org/pastor.htm Cool

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I am curious, does cyclops also believe the government invented HIV as a way to commit genocide against people of color?

Oh, I doubt it. But we don't really know where HIV came from. And the AA community has had a history of these things being done to them. So I understand their paranoia.

Wright has exploited that paranoia by deliberately instilling the belief that whites aren't just prejudiced against blacks, but whites are trying to kill them.

By preaching this to young black men, he's fostering a terrible sense of victimhood that has serious consequences for both whites and blacks.

Yet the Left sees nothing wrong with this.

What do you think about preachers who preach against Gays, or Muslims?

Ever see the movie 'Jesus Camp?' You ought to.

Cycloptichorn

I own the movie Cyclops and I think both Rev Wright and the crazy preachers you speak of are both insane and bad examples of their religions. They are ALL BIGOTS.

Now, will you admit that Wright is a bigot too?

0 Replies

I think Wright seems a bigot based on the sentences I have read he said, in fact if asked; I would agree that he is racist based on his statements on the face of it cobbled together or taken one at a time. I do not believe you can put a context to the statements to make them any better. I would say the same if opposite sort of statements were made by a republican.

However; I believe Obama when he says Wright is an unfortunate product of his times and that he didn't always agree with Wright despite having those close ties with him. He tired to make a comparison which backfired with his grandmother who is also a product of her times and is/was (don't remember if she is still living)was afraid to walk down the street if a black man was on the street. (or something like that; going by memory) He said his grandmother was always there for him and he would no more disown her than he would his pastor who had become like a family memory to him. To me all that seems understandable and I accept it.

Obama has said we have to move forward from that era and work toward racial reconciliation and I believe he really means it and apparently so a lot of other people if the polls are anything to go by.

Mostly from what I can tell most of the people who seem to raising the most stink after Obama's speech (as snood I think said) are people who had no intention of voting for Obama in the first place and fox news and the like are keeping it going to fan the flames among their listeners.

Obama has been forthright in explaining all this since he first started to speak out about and he comes off as believable to a lot of people.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
If republicans think that they can hold Obama accountale for the words and actions of another person because of their closeness/influence, then republicans would have held Bush accountable for Enron, Iraq, GitMo etc.

T
K
O

Unfortunately for Obama, the burden of proof regarding what he does and does not believe is his, not mine and not Republicans, as he is the one spending 20 years around a white-hating, America-hating demagogue.

LOL Obama has no obligation to convince racists of anything. Wright doesn't hate whites or America. It is clear that only angry racist whites believe he does.

0 Replies

Well it is obvious this discussion has dissolved into a typical did too - did not - your mama wears army boots.

Obama may in fact be the next President of the United States. If he is not, and the last several dozen pages on this thread are in any way typical, his supporters will claim that he was rejected because of racism, "Whitie keeping a brother down", and Swift boating. I accept that there are some who think Jeremiah Wright is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that he is undeserving of the criticism heaped upon him.

I think Obama's 20-year association with Wright, calling him his spiritual advisor, guide, mentor, putting him on his campaign staff, and then claiming he didn't know anything about Wright's racist, anti-American views simply doesn't hold up as credible.

But after all this, I wonder if those supporting Obama and/or Jeremiah Wright will be as generous in giving those on the Right benefit of the doubt the next time they are linked with some controversial figure?

0 Replies

You weren't going to vote for Obama or any other black man for president, so stop with your not credible bullshit. You never believed in Obama.

Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

foxfyre has a very different burden of proof for her white allies;

[quote="foxfyre']
The far left accuses Bush of many despicable things. So far there is nothing to prove these accusations other than the desire to believe the worst about them. I take seriously those who are willing to see the whole picture and/or who will wait for the evidence before condemning somebody.[/quote]

What a f***ing hypocrite.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But after all this, I wonder if those supporting Obama and/or Jeremiah Wright will be as generous in giving those on the Right benefit of the doubt the next time they are linked with some controversial figure?

And I wonder if those on the right will apply the same standards to their own candidates that they applied to Obama. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Quite predictably we will all take our expected positions because "you did it to our guy" or "you weren't hard enough on your guy".

All I want in this discussion, or any other for that matter, is that the standards be applied equally. If you are judging Obama by Wright's words then you must also judge McCain by Hagee's and Falwell's, and every other politician's by anyone they are or have been associated with. Obviously, this would make for a very long and very noisy election season where we don't talk about any issues but try our hardest to destroy each other. One of the three candidates will be our next president. They are actually three pretty good candidates for once. Let's try not to destroy them all before they take office.

The bottom line is that nobody, so far as I've seen, seems to be accusing Obama of sharing Wright's views. Nobody wants to make that argument, with good reason. So if we can all agree that he doesn't share Wright's views then there is really no point in continuing to go round and round on this. Even conservatives are tired of it -- even Fox news commentators are tired of it. This is, above all else, politics of personal destruction. No more, no less. And I'm done playing it as are most Obama supporters as evidenced by the last 20 or so pages. There is a thread that is specifically about Obama and Wright and may I suggest that those who want to discuss whether or not Wright is a racist bigot and whether or not Obama will take the oath of office immediately followed by the black power salute take that discussion there.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think Obama's 20-year association with Wright, calling him his spiritual advisor, guide, mentor, putting him on his campaign staff, and then claiming he didn't know anything about Wright's racist, anti-American views simply doesn't hold up as credible.

Your argument would be more credible if you could stick to the truth, Foxy. Did Obama, in fact, say "he didn't know anything"?

No. This is what Obama has said:

Quote:

You can criticise Obama on the basis of what he actually said. Fine. But if you make up stuff, your argument is really not very credible.

0 Replies

Quote:

Endorsing Obama
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents....

About Doug Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx

0 Replies

Rox,

Its quite true that many of us who favor other Presidential hopefuls have been critical of Obama's close personal relationship with Rev. Wright for 20 years. Obama gave a nicely crafted speech denying that he holds the same views as Rev. Wright. Now, why would he disavow his friend, adviser, and pastor if Rev. Wright's ministry wasn't racist? Do fine words in a single speech, in campaign rhetoric, or in a self=promoting book trump twenty years of silent support and constant association? Does Obama have the political experience to know that belonging to an organization that preaches hatred for the U.S., and racial divisiveness, is not good politics? These questions, and more, go the very heart of your candidates fitness to lead the United States as President.

Do you seriously believe that no one should criticize or question a candidate other than his own supporters? What an interesting concept, but one that should certainly make for less brutal campaigning. Are you saying that since you are not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, you won't criticize or question her during the Primaries? So, in the general election, you won't pursue the GOP candidates associations, beliefs, prejudices, character, and etc.? Does this mean all of your attacks on the President and his administration are justified BECAUSE you are a Republican supporter of George Bush? Reducio ad absurdum. Using your logic, it was unfair for Americans to judge the fitness of that KKK leader who ran for national office a number of years ago. Somehow, I just don't believe that you aren't applying a double standard here.

Obama is shown to have a long and intimate relationship with a church the preaches racism. Why is it so hard to suppose that Obama also doesn't harbor racial prejudices after supporting that institution for 20 years? But, rather than a defense of his questionable (at the very least) association, his supporters are already trying to pin the racial prejudice label on those who have the audacity not to "believe in Obama".

Your belief in collective guilt that taints all white Americans, except presumably the Enlightened Left, is itself unjust prejudice. "Collective Guilt" was one of the justifications for the disenfranchisement German Jews and the death camps. Even if America carries a burden of collective guilt (which is an anathema to our sense of justice), it would not justify nor excuse racial prejudice and hatred by the presumed victims of injustices committed 60-250 years ago. As someone pointed out above, America has scrapped all of its Jim Crow laws, and bent over backwards to provide a level playing field for the descendants of slaves. How does that justify Rev. Wright and his congregation's racial prejudice and hatred for our country?

0 Replies

I don't pin those who refuse to accept Obama's explantion on racism; I pin it on typical politics.

He explained his twenty year relationship and he explained he didn't always accept Wright view on things and some thing even raised his eyebrows; but he also explained the closeness Wright had with him and his family and that is why he can not now or then disown him despite disagreeing with some of Wright's views. This is very reasonable and thankfully accepted except by those who never would have voted for him in the first place.

0 Replies

Quote:

Obama is shown to have a long and intimate relationship with a church the preaches racism. Why is it so hard to suppose that Obama also doesn't harbor racial prejudices after supporting that institution for 20 years?

Yeah, right. You have an entire christian movement, intimately tied to the Republican Party in the US, whose leader, Pat Robertson, has been spewing hatred against Hindus and Muslims for twenty years, but is a classic anti-semite as well...

Quote:

There's a "tightly knit cabal" that datesback to 1776 " whose goal is nothing less than a new order for the human race under the domination of Lucifer and hisfollowers." It all began when a Bavarian professor, one Adam Weishaupt, founded a secret societycalled "The Order of the Illuminati." His immediate purpose was to take over the Freemasons,and for that he depended on rich Jews. The Illuminated Freemasonry moved its headquarters to Frankfurt,which was controlled by the Rothschilds, and suddenly "new money...poured into the Frankfurtlodge, and from there a well-funded plan for world revolution was carried forth." Operating secretlyin France and Germany, offspring "revolutionary societies" commissioned the writing ofthe Communist Manifesto.

And so forth, familiar to anyone who's had the misfortune todelve into standard anti-Semitic literature. In Mr. Robertson's version, there's not much that's wrong withthe world that can't be traced to the Satanic perversity of the "European bankers" and, sincethey dispatched members of their families to America, now Wall Street, too. From Lincoln's assassination (JohnWilkes Booth was the cabal' s hireling) to the Russian Revolution to the Cold War (and the GulfWar, too), we've all been their pawns.

Or their co-workers: In another book, "The New Millennium,"Mr. Robertson inveighs against the "cosmopolitan, liberal secular Jews" who seek "unrestrictedfreedom for smut and pornography and the murder of the unborn." Because of them, America will oneday abandon Israel; American Christians (though warned by their leaders against anti-Semitism) will riseup against these evil people.

Michael Lind, on whose immensely valuable exploration (in TheNew York Review of Books) of Mr. Robertson's writings I draw here, asks pointedly what conservatives-- "particularly Jewish neo-conservatives" -- would say "if Louis Farrakhanhad written a book that made the New York Times best-seller list and claimed that Jewish financiers like the Rothschilds,Paul Warburg, and Jacob Schiff were leaders in a two-century old Freemason-Communist-Banker conspiracyto exploit American tax-payers and the members of the armed forces in America by stirringup deficit-financed wars."

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-worldconspiracies-illuminati.html#anchor364683

0 Replies

"I don't pin those who refuse to accept Obama's explantion on racism; I pin it on typical politics."

Good for you. That, whether anyone likes it or not, is and always has been the way American political campaigns do business. Our system places enormous power into the hands of the President, and Political Parties attempt to persuade the voting public that their candidate is better than their candidate. At rock bottom, our electoral system fosters competition and every weakness of the opposition are seized upon and put under a microscope. Issues and campaign planks are touted as essential to garnering votes, but those rest upon our estimation of a candidate's experience, character, and political philosophy. It is not a perfect system, but it has served the United States reasonably well over the past 200 years.

The Democrats will nominate a candidate that they hope will be able to win in the general election, or a candidate whose ideological attractiveness they believe in. The GOP goes through the same exercise. The most radical elements of both Parties tend to be shrill activists who are most likely to find their way into the media spotlight. Candidates who become too closely associated with their Party's radical wing run a grave risk of losing their appeal to the less politically active, moderate American voter.

In spite of the rhetoric, not all Democrats are Leftists whose political philosophy owes more to Karl Marx than to James Madison. The Democratic Party, the Party that supported segregation from 1865-196X, has transformed itself to appeal to the enfranchised Black voters. In the process, they now revile the GOP that led the fight for enfranchisement as racists. Is it fair? Nope, but it is how politics work.

Not all Republicans are right-wing religious fanatics, or wealthy "neo-con", who are wealthy oil plutocrats. Because one supports the United States effort to combat Radical Islamic Terrorism, does not make one a "war lover" or a conspirator to world colonial domination. The political philosophy of the GOP rests upon the Constitution as designed by our Federalist founders, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and even Madison before he went over to the Jeffersonians whose political philosophy was so dear to the hearts of the Democratic Party since the time of Andrew Jackson.

0 Replies

Typical Wright Sermon Video Clip

Wright on God's Love

Fox Lies, Wright Tells the Truth

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know