okie
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:41 am
Asherman wrote:
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. ......

Asherman, I am curious about something with BLT (Black Liberation Theology) that is too bizarre to make up. One of the things that David Cone has discussed is the intersection of Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Socialism. As far as I can determine, one of the common denominators is the oppression of the Jews when they put Jesus on the cross and the oppression of blacks by the white man, as this theology perceives it. So all of the above have common enemies, the Jews, the western white man, and throw in capitalism as well, which oppresses the poor. So there you have it all wrapped into one nice big package, hatred of Jews, the western world, capitalism, and oppression by rich white men. What do you think of that? Quite a religion, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:41 am
old europe wrote:
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.


And your argument would be more credible if a speech addressing the problem was the only evidence we had. Those still capable of looking at it objectively are willing to look at all of it. Rox posts a link to a video of a 'typical Wright sermon' which she has no way of knowing what is or is not typical. CNN, ABC, and other news sources have listened to a LOT of Wright tapes and agree that the message is more often racially charged and anti-American than not.

But in light of Obama's speech, the following remains his problem:

Just What Did Obama Know About Wright's Past Sermons?
March 15, 2008 6:15 PM

In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn''t feel comfortable there."

Obama told CNN that he "didn't know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. ... If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don't think it would have been reflective of my values."

But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Wright told the Times. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me."
In a phone call with Wright, Obama cited a Rolling Stone story, "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama," (the name of which has curiously been changed on the RS website) and told him, according to Wright, ""You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we''ve decided is that it''s best for you not to be out there in public."

That story included the following passage: "The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country.

Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite 10 essential facts about the United States. 'Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,' he intones. 'Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!' There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. 'We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!"

The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: 'And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!'"

This was more than a year ago.

So ... what did Obama know then and what did he just all of a sudden learn?
- jpt
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/just-what-did-o.html


And here is one of several video clips in which he said that he didn't hear Pastor Wright's more controversial comments and he would have quit if he had.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4gPXj4JPk&feature=user
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:42 am
Trinity United not just a Soundbite
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:44 am
okie wrote:
Asherman wrote:
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. ......

Asherman, I am curious about something with BLT (Black Liberation Theology) that is too bizarre to make up. One of the things that David Cone has discussed is the intersection of Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Socialism. As far as I can determine, one of the common denominators is the oppression of the Jews when they put Jesus on the cross and the oppression of blacks by the white man, as this theology perceives it. So all of the above have common enemies, the Jews, the western white man, and throw in capitalism as well, which oppresses the poor. So there you have it all wrapped into one nice big package, hatred of Jews, the western world, capitalism, and oppression by rich white men. What do you think of that? Quite a religion, isn't it?


Correction, it was theologian, James Cone, that I was speaking of in regard to his BLT.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:44 am


The A2k Haters do not want the truth.They merely want to hate and smear.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:45 am


More drool posted by the haters while the truth is ignored.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:46 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
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.


A year ago we saw Obama hugging Rev. Wright and now he's distancing.
A year ago Obama listened to Wright's sermons, nodded along, and even listened to his tapes. Not now.
At one time, Obama had a Wright video on his website and glowing testimony. Not now.

How any of that makes it anyone's burden but Obama's is illogical nonsense.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:49 am
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


How about... "If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement" by his pastor... who is not Hagee.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:50 am
Another Typical Sermon the A2K Bigots Will Ignore
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:51 am
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In order to equate Hagee and Falwell with Jeremiah Wright, you have to put McCain into Hagee and Falwell's churches, you have to show that he contributed heavily to those churches, that he considers Hagee and Falwell to be his spiritual advisors and mentors over decades, and he would have to put Hagee and Falwell on his campaign. Fairness requires acknowledgement that we are comparing apples to oranges trying to equate Hagee and Falwell with Jeremiah Wright.

Now if you want to analyze a church or organization to which McCain has belonged for a long time and which he acknowledges has shaped his beliefs and values, that would be an honest comparison.

For McCain to ask for Hagee and Falwell's support is to solicit favor from the religious right which is a significant voting block. It is something that politicians do to garner enough votes to get elected. Hillary and Obama have appeared before numerous groups soliciting their support. Are we to assume that soliciting such support infers ideological agreement with every single one of those groups or organizations? We would be into the next century tracking down all the implications of that if this just asking for votes/support is to be equated with unconditional approval of the person/group asked.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:51 am
For many of those criticizing Obama for having "a close relationship" to his pastor for 20 years, it's just downright ridiculous! I have "a close relationship" to all my siblings even though they are all christians, married to christians, and are republicans - for the major part of my life - and I'm now 72 years old. I'm an atheist and an independent.

Do we have differences of opinion? You betcha.

Some people just don't understand what "relationships" are all about. They also want me to divorce my siblings? Get real!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:54 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
For many of those criticizing Obama for having "a close relationship" to his pastor for 20 years, it's just downright ridiculous! I have "a close relationship" to all my siblings even though they are all christians, married to christians, and are republicans - for the major part of my life - and I'm now 72 years old. I'm an atheist and an independent.

Do we have differences of opinion? You betcha.

Some people just don't understand what "relationships" are all about. They also want me to divorce my siblings? Get real!

How lucky can anyone be, ci. But seriously if you ran for president, you would not use your siblings as advisors I doubt, nor do you attend their churches from the sound of it. Get real, ci.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 09:58 am
cnn.com

CNN) -- Facing fire from some fellow Democrats for his decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday he still considers himself loyal to the family that helped make his political career.
art.richardson.sun.ap.jpg

Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, but says he is very loyal to the Clintons.

"I am very loyal to the Clintons. I served under President Clinton. But I served well. And I served the country well. And he gave me that opportunity," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."

"But you know ... it shouldn't just be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said.

Richardson was secretary of energy under the Clinton administration, a post that helped bring him to national prominence and win the governorship of New Mexico in 2002.

Richardson, who abandoned his presidential bid January 10, endorsed Obama on Friday as the Democratic nominee. He called Sen. Hillary Clinton Thursday to tell her of his decision, Clinton's campaign said. Video Watch what was behind Richardson's decision ยป

The Clinton campaign shrugged off the endorsement. "Both candidates have many great endorsers, but the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election, and there are still millions of voters in upcoming contests who want to have their voices heard," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said.

Richardson was asked Sunday about James Carville's comment that Richardson's Obama endorsement "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver." Carville is an adviser to Clinton's presidential campaign and a CNN political analyst.
Don't Miss

* Richardson: Speech 'clinched' endorsement
* Gov. Richardson endorses Obama
* Election Center 2008

"Well, I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson said. "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a prominent Clinton supporter, told Fox that he has no problem with Richardson's decision. He accused the Obama campaign of complaining about negativity while launching unfair attacks on Clinton.

Discussing a spat over whether Bill Clinton had challenged Obama's patriotism, Rendell said Obama is trying "to have it both ways."

The former president's remark last week that "it would be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country" sparked a dispute over whether he was questioning Obama's patriotism.

The full quote: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

The Clinton campaign denied any slight to Obama's patriotism. But retired Gen. Tony McPeak, an Obama surrogate, compared Clinton to Joe McCarthy.

McCarthy was a senator who was known for leveling accusations that people were Communists or spying for the Russians in the 1950s.

Richardson said he does not think former President Clinton was implying that Obama is unpatriotic.

Richardson added, "The campaign has gotten too negative -- too many personal attacks, too much negativity that is not resounding with the public."

Rendell responded, "They say the campaign's too negative, and they go out and turn an innocent remark -- Bill Clinton was saying what a lot of us feel ... If they want to tone it down, don't accuse someone of McCarthyism."

Richardson responded, "There's been negativity on both sides."

Rendell also accused the Obama camp of contradicting itself in another way that Richardson's endorsement highlights.

"First, they say the superdelegates should reflect the will of the people of their states. Well, we have Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry saying they're going to vote for Obama even though Sen. Clinton won by 13 points in Massachusetts. ... The voters of New Mexico chose Sen. Clinton. If we follow the Obama line, Bill Richardson should be for Sen. Clinton."

"Yes, but, Eddie, by half a percent -- come on," Richardson responded, in a reference to the slight margin by which Clinton won New Mexico.

In a February interview with The New York Times, Richardson discussed how superdelegates should vote. "It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency," he told the newspaper at the time.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In order to equate Hagee and Falwell with Jeremiah Wright, you have to put McCain into Hagee and Falwell's churches, you have to show that he contributed heavily to those churches, that he considers Hagee and Falwell to be his spiritual advisors and mentors over decades, and he would have to put Hagee and Falwell on his campaign. Fairness requires acknowledgement that we are comparing apples to oranges trying to equate Hagee and Falwell with Jeremiah Wright.

Now if you want to analyze a church or organization to which McCain has belonged for a long time and which he acknowledges has shaped his beliefs and values, that would be an honest comparison.

For McCain to ask for Hagee and Falwell's support is to solicit favor from the religious right which is a significant voting block. It is something that politicians do to garner enough votes to get elected. Hillary and Obama have appeared before numerous groups soliciting their support. Are we to assume that soliciting such support infers ideological agreement with every single one of those groups or organizations? We would be into the next century tracking down all the implications of that if this just asking for votes/support is to be equated with unconditional approval of the person/group asked.


I think that soliciting the votes and support from hateful people is as bad as having personal relationships with them, yes. And why not? It shows that you are willing to endorse the hateful views of someone when it brings you personal gain. I don't see how that's superior to Obama's situation. It's craven, and yes, political; but that's not something to just be shrugged and accepted. If Obama were to court the Socialists, or the Greenpeace vote, you and others would have a cow about what it meant. But b/c mainstream Christianity has no problem hating on Gays and Muslims, you have no problem with Hagee.

But, that's a whole other taco. Let's just ask McCains pastor what he thinks about Reverend Wright:

Quote:
"All preachers have a tendency to overstate because our passion is so intense. But I thought Obama did a fine job in response. He preserved his friendship with his pastor while disagreeing with him," Dan Yeary said.


http://www.topix.net/afam/2008/03/mccains-pastor-dan-yeary-defends-obamas-pastor-yahoo-news

Unlike others here, McCain's pastor seems not so quick to judge.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
For many of those criticizing Obama for having "a close relationship" to his pastor for 20 years, it's just downright ridiculous! I have "a close relationship" to all my siblings even though they are all christians, married to christians, and are republicans - for the major part of my life - and I'm now 72 years old. I'm an atheist and an independent.

Do we have differences of opinion? You betcha.

Some people just don't understand what "relationships" are all about. They also want me to divorce my siblings? Get real!

How lucky can anyone be, ci. But seriously if you ran for president, you would not use your siblings as advisors I doubt, nor do you attend their churches from the sound of it. Get real, ci.


You never cease to amaze me with your ignorance.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:06 am
March 24, 2008, 5:00 a.m.

THE OBAMA CRASH AND BURN
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:07 am
VDH should concentrate more on drinking Gin and less on writing. He's better at the former, by a lot.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:12 am
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:17 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
VDH should concentrate more on drinking Gin and less on writing. He's better at the former, by a lot.

Cycloptichorn


He must have been drunk when he penned that drivel.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 10:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
VDH should concentrate more on drinking Gin and less on writing. He's better at the former, by a lot.

Cycloptichorn


A typical answer when one has no good argument to counter one's opponents.
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 681
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.29 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 06:35:26