Obama '08?

okie wrote:

The truth is the Democratic Party has messed up big time in pushing Obama for president, and I think a huge case of buyers remorse is setting in, at least by a significant portion of the party, and probably among alot of Democrats that have not yet admitted it.

Keep repeating this nonsense and maybe someday it will be true. In the mean time; the man remains a 4 or 5 to one favorite for the nomination, despite your idiotic repetition of this tiresome BS.

There are few Christian denominations in which the social gospel is preached more fervently than as it is typically preached in the UCC. The way that Jeremiah Wright presents that message would not be the cup of tea as a steady diet for many (most?) Christians, but neither is it faulted as inappropriate or theologically wrong.

It is the excesses--the implication that it is "rich white people" keeping the brothers' down, that the government is trying to kill black people etc., that the USA deserved 9/11 because it has engaged in other conflicts, etc. that most Christians cannot accept as acceptable from the pulpit (or anywhere else) and certainly not acceptable as Christian gospel.

The sound bites certainly exaggerate the prevalence of this kind of rhetoric, but even Pastor Wright says they have been misused, not misquoted.

And the statements most criticized were not addressed at all in the interview.

At his National Press Club address this morning he went further to say that this is not an attack on him or Barack Obama but is rather an attack on the black church. ! I'm sorry, I just think that is an irrational statement.

It is almost certainly true that the more sensational sound bites were plucked out of the whole and have been presented as the norm and this is the typical media dishonesty that is evident in most news reporting these days.

Foxfyre wrote:

There are few Christian denominations in which the social gospel is preached more fervently than as it is typically preached in the UCC. The way that Jeremiah Wright presents that message would not be the cup of tea as a steady diet for many (most?) Christians, but neither is it faulted as inappropriate or theologically wrong.

It is the excesses--the implication that it is "rich white people" keeping the brothers' down, that the government is trying to kill black people etc., that the USA deserved 9/11 because it has engaged in other conflicts, etc. that most Christians cannot accept as acceptable from the pulpit (or anywhere else) and certainly not acceptable as Christian gospel.

Whether the excesses of the 'Black Church' are or aren't acceptable as Christian gospel, is, of course not relevant to our political process.
I do agree with you that many of these ideas emanating from some Black Churches (Christian and otherwise) are actually harmful to a Black population that, in my view, is more in need of stimulus to reform its own social ills than it is in blaming others for their current plight. However, I can readily understand how this situation evolved, and sympathize with them over the result. The Black Church evolved over a very long period under very serious and pernicious oppression of Black people. Its achievements in providing spiritual and social sustenance to its flock (usually under very adverse conditions), and in inspiring effective, peaceful resistance to that oppression are truly impressive, even on an historical scale. Now, after the reforms of the last forty years, the situation around it has changed, while it has not yet fully adapted itself to the new reality. This is certainly a common enough phenomenon in human affairs - we can see similar patterns in almost every other national or ethnic group that has experienced such transitions, and very few have done better.

Foxfyre wrote:

The sound bites certainly exaggerate the prevalence of this kind of rhetoric, but even Pastor Wright says they have been misused, not misquoted.

And the statements most criticized were not addressed at all in the interview.

At his National Press Club address this morning he went further to say that this is not an attack on him or Barack Obama but is rather an attack on the black church. ! I'm sorry, I just think that is an irrational statement.

I agree that Moyers did not spend any energy criticizing or challenging the quotes that have been so widely publicized, and that this was possibly a result of Moyers' own biases. However, the quotes themselves have already been widely criticized and challenged my many others -- we are not in great need for more of it. Moyers did a good job in eliciting detail on the personal background and context from which the quotes emerged - and that had truly been missing from the public discourse on the matter.

Finally, there is indeed some criticism of the Black church implicit in all of this. As indicated, I believe some of this is merited. That Wright might not welcome it is no surprise - he has dedicated his whole life to the present reality and can't easily escape the influence of his earlier years in a fast changing world. We all face this problem, but fortunately for most of us not so poignantly as him.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

The truth is the Democratic Party has messed up big time in pushing Obama for president, and I think a huge case of buyers remorse is setting in, at least by a significant portion of the party, and probably among alot of Democrats that have not yet admitted it.

Keep repeating this nonsense and maybe someday it will be true. In the mean time; the man remains a 4 or 5 to one favorite for the nomination, despite your idiotic repetition of this tiresome BS.

We shall see, Bill. The main problem is getting reasonable people to admit there has been a huge mistake made, you included. I challenge you to go back and listen to his sermon or sermons provided in my link, then come back here and tell me who is full of nonsense, Wright or okie. You have a choice. Join the people with blinders and circle the wagons because you have already gone down the road a ways and cannot admit your mistake, or the right choice, admit Obama is a very flawed candidate. You can call me idiotic, tiresome, and full of repetition, but repetition is about the only option when people won't recognize the obvious.

In the past, you have purported to be almost a conservative, and in fact nimh I believe classifies you as such, but I think that is a huge error, as you seem to have taken on the persona of a huge liberal, now supporting one of the most liberal senators ever in Barack Obama. I think you need to re-examine where you are taking yourself now.

Again, for the terminally ignorant: I couldn't care less if Wright were a Saint or an idiot. You would have trouble finding any preacher who's words didn't regularly strike me as nonsense. Neither do I care what Obama's butcher, baker or candlestick maker's politics are... in case you were going to ask.

I promise you this; I won't be voting for Rev. Wright.

As for my politics; I tend to hold rather extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum... but more often than not on the Conservative side. You will find that sometimes people blessed with their own brains don't follow party lines very well.

That Obama remains a heavy favorite for the democratic nomination is a simple matter of fact. Hence; your question of who is full of BS, Wright or Okie presents a false dilemma. You both are.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Again, for the terminally ignorant: I couldn't care less if Wright were a Saint or an idiot. You would have trouble finding any preacher who's words didn't regularly strike me as nonsense. Neither do I care what Obama's butcher, baker or candlestick maker's politics are... in case you were going to ask.

I promise you this; I won't be voting for Rev. Wright.

As for my politics; I tend to hold rather extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum... but more often than not on the Conservative side. You will find that sometimes people blessed with their own brains don't follow party lines very well.

That Obama remains a heavy favorite for the democratic nomination is a simple matter of fact. Hence; your question of who is full of BS, Wright or Okie presents a false dilemma. You both are.

For all reading Bill, here is a perfect example of political ignorance. He claims to vote other than party lines, well, party lines mean things whether you want them to or not. I have known lots of people boast of the same voting habits, and generally it is for people that are generally ignorant of how politics works in Washington DC. If you claim to be conservative and yet support liberal politicians from an extremely liberal party, I would have to say you are the one that is ignorant, Bill. You apparently have no allegiance to underlying principles that drives your viewpoints, otherwise you would recognize the underlying principles of parties, apart from the candidates. There are in fact real reasons why candidates are members of political parties, whether you are astute enough to figure them out or not.

P. S. Would you care about who Obama's advisors were? I suppose not.

You probably only care about anything that supports what you already think.

It is you who had your mind made up for you, before the candidates were even announced.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It is you who had your mind made up for you, before the candidates were even announced.

Sorry to have disagree again and again, but you are just as wrong on the above point. If you have read any of my posts at all, you would know better. You would have known I came around to support Romney after a few debates, and before any of the radio pundits ended up doing the same. Hannity was supporting your man, Giuliani, and Rush did not support anyone until Thompson, before he dropped out. Many ended up following my conclusion and ultimately supported Romney, but his candidacy never took off, so here we are with the maverick McCain. I will make the best of it.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It is you who had your mind made up for you, before the candidates were even announced.

Sorry to have disagree again and again, but you are just as wrong on the above point. If you have read any of my posts at all, you would know better. You would have known I came around to support Romney after a few debates, and before any of the radio pundits ended up doing the same. Hannity was supporting your man, Giuliani, and Rush did not support anyone until Thompson, before he dropped out. Many ended up following my conclusion and ultimately supported Romney, but his candidacy never took off, so here we are with the maverick McCain. I will make the best of it.

Yes, we know you'll be a loyal subject. Tell me though: How do you like it that my voting block had more influence with the Republican Nomination than your own?

While we are in mostly fundamental agreement here, I don't agree that there are 'excesses' in 'most' black churches. Somewhere in all this I previously posted my experience with predominantly black churches mostly in my role doing communications for a large church denomination that included accompanying visiting black religious leaders from Africa.

I found most such churches to be noisy, great music, exhuberant, participatory, lots of applauding, 'amen corners' and with emphatic preaching from the pulpit. The message was often a social gospel but nowhere did I hear anything that could have produced a sound bite even similar to those attributed to Jeremiah Wright. The services were generally enjoyable, uplifting, and I really felt like I had been to church.

I do not think Jeremiah Wright's interrmittant controversial message is typical of the 'black church' at all.

teenyboone wrote:

okie wrote:

revel wrote:

nimh; at this point I am just so disgusted in general with this whole democratic primary that I am finding it hard to summon up any interest. But you would think that Americans after falling for the swift boats and anti-gay marriage stuff in 2004 would see all this stuff being slung at Obama for the crap it is. ....

As long as anyone, anyone, is running for president, they will be examined. They deserve it. Some of you here act as though Obama should be too holy to be criticized. Sorry, it aint going to happen. And as long as his former pastor is running around spewing more nonsense, as he continues to do, it will keep the fires burning. And even nice old John McCain has to admit some of the pastor's statements are mighty bizarre. If Obama would simply throw Wright overboard like he did his grandmother, all of this would be over with, but until that happens, I think he will have alot more explainin to do. Either that, or he can just quit debating and talking to any of the press he doesn't like, which he may be close to doing.

The latest statements of Wright, he compares himself to Jesus, he is being crucified. And people are just taking his old statements out of context, he really didn't mean all that stuff. Also, he says things as a pastor, and Obama says things as a politician. Interpretation, Obama is just a politician and that is why he can't be totally frank about things, or say really what he may believe, or agree with Wright publically as a politician, even though he may agree privately.

Democrats, do you actually agree with this guy and his buddy, Obama, or is this all a joke? I keep hoping I will wake up from a dream and none of this is true.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/wright-discusses-public-crucifixio
n-at-sunday-services/

Okie:
I agree, but to a certain extent. I don't believe in "fabricating or swift-boating" of anyone, of any party. If we could look past party affiliation, it's one thing, but if a candidate has a decided record of voting on issues as McCain has, as Hillary has, or Obama, who is virtually an unknown, they should be examined. I don't abide "making up" something on a candidate to discredit an otherwise decent person, though.

The Jerimiah Wright crucifixion, is just that. Play the whole sermon instead of taking one line from one sermon and editing it with a line from another, giving the appearance of something else, when it is a downright lie! Let's call it what it is! You have Hillary running around doing to Obama what the republicans are known for; running someone into the ground! It's just like the press when they think Martin Luther King's reputation is based on one speech, when Blacks know otherwise! He also gave a famous speech against the Viet-Nam War, which the mainstream media NEVER plays! He sounds too much like Jeremiah Wright!

So go on and crucify whoever you wish. In the end, you'll get 8 more years of Bush, because that's what you'll get; someone who doesn't have your best interest. McCain flies around in his rich wife's jet, for almost nothing, because he can! He voted against civil rights but knows he'll lose because Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat and why not? Hillary has split the Democratic Party in two with her race-baiting remarks, the belittlling of an unknown, who she CAN'T beat, unless she does what she's doing! Talk to me in December, after the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, as usual! They can kiss my fat A$$, for all I care!

Thanks for the honest response, teenybone.

Your suggestion of playing a whole sermon, I have just done that from the following link. This is just one sermon, I think, maybe more. There are 4 parts in the link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352661,00.html

It is even more shocking, to say the least. You should listen to it as well, but my assessment of the sermon is as follows: He starts out with using a few biblical verses, and then launches into a long rant about politics, war, colonization, the evils of America and the rich, the military, regime change, killing indians, whites, evil Bush, Iraq, on and on. The sermon is not religious, it is more than 95% political, but the dangerous part of it is he hinges his political views entirely upon religion, his view of God, Jesus, etc. The man is a certifiable nut in my opinion, and is a political activist, not a preacher. I am even more convinced the man is a racist and hates his own country. He is full of hatred, no doubt at all in my mind after watching him speak for a while. He even mentions Anita Hill, attacks Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court, on and on. The man is a 100% hate monger, and I find it absolutely astounding that any reasonable person can be a friend of this man, much less a serious presidential candidate. The truth is the Democratic Party has messed up big time in pushing Obama for president, and I think a huge case of buyers remorse is setting in, at least by a significant portion of the party, and probably among alot of Democrats that have not yet admitted it.

nimh wrote:

... but then neither does Obama ...

I find that hard to believe.

I find it hard to believe that he sat in that church for 20 years, asked Rev. Wright to perform his wedding ceremony, sit on his advisory team, and holds him in such esteem as his personal spiritual advisor, and now wants to cherry pick what he agrees with him about when the issue is raised in his campaign.

I think it's our duty as Americans, though, to point out every flaw of our favored Presidential opponents. No matter how small. Especially on the internet.

For all reading Bill, here is a perfect example of political ignorance. He claims to vote other than party lines, well, party lines mean things whether you want them to or not. I have known lots of people boast of the same voting habits, and generally it is for people that are generally ignorant of how politics works in Washington DC. If you claim to be conservative and yet support liberal politicians from an extremely liberal party, I would have to say you are the one that is ignorant, Bill. You apparently have no allegiance to underlying principles that drives your viewpoints, otherwise you would recognize the underlying principles of parties, apart from the candidates.

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:

... but then neither does Obama ...

I find that hard to believe.

You find it hard to believe that Obama doesnt think of America as the US of KKKA? Or that Obama doesnt agree that Aids was created and spread among blacks by the government? That kind of thing?

Or you just find it hard to believe that someone would disagree with some of the things his preacher says?

Ticomaya wrote:

I find it hard to believe that he sat in that church for 20 years, asked Rev. Wright to perform his wedding ceremony, sit on his advisory team, and holds him in such esteem as his personal spiritual advisor, and now wants to cherry pick what he agrees with him about when the issue is raised in his campaign.

So in short, since he remained with that church, got married there, and has taken and appreciated advice from Wright on spiritual matters, you believe he must agree with everything Wright said?

I mean - really?