Meanwhile, Back at Trinity United

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The job of a Christian minister is not politics and social activism. I know what liberation theology is and it’s not historic, orthodox Christianity and I don’t need to hear the rest of his ‘sermons’ to get a read from him.[/quote]

If you are going to get uptight based on the flavor of Christianity, then you are really just marginalizing yourself. Christ had a lot to say about how to treat people… and some people interpret that as meaning that we must help others. Where does that end – and who are you to make that call?

I haven’t seen this aspect of their relationship.

[quote]Obama doesn’t strike me as a guy who knows who he is or what is true, but his incompetence should keep us from making the world safer for Islam as Bush has done. McCain is more of the ‘invade the world, invite the world’ mindset and we certainly don’t need that.

The way Obama threw his white grandmother under the bus in his latest speech on race is not something a real man would do to somebody who raised him, especially considering that his African bigamist Muslim father abandoned him. [/quote]

Unless there has been a new speech, I don’t think he threw his grandmother under the bus. Is this the one where he said his grandmother had/has the views of her era? Given the age of some of these people it isn’t reasonable to expect them to have the same viewpoints as many of us do today.

Things change over time.

22

The job of a minister is not politics or social activism. His job is to preach the gospel, which consists of proclaiming Christ, his death on the cross, and his resurrection for our sins. Jesus was not a social activist. But it’s not me answering for my preaching at the day of judgment, so it really doesn’t matter to me all that much. The Osteens, Wrights, Dollars, and other such ministers should probably care.

[quote]. Is this the one where he said his grandmother had/has the views of her era? Given the age of some of these people it isn’t reasonable to expect them to have the same viewpoints as many of us do today.

Things change over time.[/quote]

No his grandmother didn’t express the views of other whites at the time. She and her husband were both progressive in that sense. The incident Obama was mentioning in his speech as an example of her racial views he describes in “Dreams from my Father.” His grandmother was afraid of getting mugged by a black man because the man was acting aggressively while she and young Obama were waiting at the bus stop. It was only because the bus showed up that she was saved. You can buy the book and read it though (pages 88-91):

Obama’s white grandfather actually went out of the way to chastise another white man for making a racial slur against Obama while they were at a restaurant. Obama’s grandparents were progressive.

The woman is a definite shrew. She lights him up in public and interrupts him when he’s speaking. She has a shrill tone and is vindictive.

23

[quote]vroom wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Remember how annoying and logically inconsistent it was when Republicans would inject Clinton into every thread? Stuff like: “Well your hero Clinton went into Bosnia, so there!”

It’s going to be equally annoying and logically inconsistent every time you inject Bush into threads about Obama.

Dude, would you wake the fuck up?

I’m talking about how we discussed his issues and how republican supporters applied critical reasoning towards him. I’m not trying to raise actual issues with Bush for fuck sakes.[/quote]

That would be fine if your post was logically consistent. Unfortunately it isn’t.

You’re arguing that, because Republicans “ignored” Bush’s “association” with alcohol and drugs, all of Obama’s “associations” must also be ignored, including 20 year associations with advisers that hold racist views.

That makes no logical sense and is ridiculous on its face.

It might have made sense if you had argued that because republicans ignored Bush’s drug use, they must also ignore Obama’s drug use. The problem there is that, by and large, mainstream republicans have taken Obama at his word on his prior drug use. Your analogy fails.

24

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
That would be fine if your post was logically consistent. Unfortunately it isn’t.

You’re arguing that, because Republicans “ignored” Bush’s “association” with alcohol and drugs, all of Obama’s “associations” must also be ignored, including 20 year associations with advisers that hold racist views.

That makes no logical sense and is ridiculous on its face.

It might have made sense if you had argued that because republicans ignored Bush’s drug use, they must also ignore Obama’s drug use. The problem there is that, by and large, mainstream republicans have taken Obama at his word on his prior drug use. Your analogy fails.[/quote]

You have become really fucking dense lately.

I was not arguing about ignoring drug use. I was arguing about how we believe the words of people who we side with, but we don’t believe (or listen to) the words of people we don’t agree with.

It has nothing to do with the fucking possible drug use. It has to do with giving the man a chance because of the time that has gone by…

In this case, Barack proclaims that he does not hold the views expressed by some others, and his writings and so forth seem to support those facts. Why do we believe the candidate we like and at the same time refuse to believe the candidate we don’t like?

25

[quote]lixy wrote:

Funny. I never heard you peep a word when people were criticizing Ron Paul based on who endorses him.

In fact, I distinctly remember you paint all his supporters with the same brush as whatever questionable might have endorsed him.[/quote]

Trying to sharpen your anklebiting, aye?

Clean up your idiotic post to where it makes sense. In fact, I distinctly remember a conversation where I made the point that endorsements per se weren’t a measure of a candidate, since someone raised the issue of Stormfront endorsing Ron Paul (a very bad thing for a candidate).

26

vroom,

Keeping the campaign positive. Disagree on that one. Obama is just good at using surrogates to do his dirty work.

Remove some of the divisiveness. Disagree again. How is the message of �??if you are not with him it�??s because you are an ignorant backward ass racist�?? removing divisiveness?

Oppressed victim of racism? Obama? He is a multimillionaire Senator and Harvard law grad. Michelle is almost as privileged. Oh could we all be so oppressed. You have no idea what true discrimination is.

He is from the Blackstone P Nation/El Rukn, Jesse Jackson, Nation of Islam school of community activism in Chicago. If that doesn�??t bother you may I suggest you do some more research.

�??it’s work to try to figure out who someone really is�?? Right, something the press has failed a miserably in the rush to anoint the new black Jesus President. Obama�??s rhetoric does not match his past actions.

Now America will probably end up with a John McCain as President who is not the �??maverick�?? moderate of old. Hopefully he is just pandering to shore up his right wing base but I am not so sure.

27

Obviously the RNC thinks we need to be distracted again from McCain not knowing what the hell is going on in Iraq.

Because we are obvioulsy at pre-surge levels of troops there. So long as “we are” means we will some day in the future.

Anyone else notice how angry McCain gets when he’s called on flubbing the facts in Iraq?

It seems like what should matter is McCain’s history of being wrong on all things Iraq (his strong suit!) not the words of somebody Barrack doesn’t agree with.

28

Obama breaks with Chicago church

Why do I feel BB is very disappointed…

29

[quote]lixy wrote:
Obama breaks with Chicago church

Why do I feel BB is very disappointed…[/quote]

No, this will just confirm he was a muslim after all.

and he still eats arugula, so that will still upset a lot of folks round here.

30

[quote]100meters wrote:
No, this will just confirm he was a muslim after all. [/quote]

Good one!

31

“Obama breaks with Chicago church…”

What an act of courage, at this late hour, after it has hurt him politically, and not a minute before.

Judgment.

32

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
vroom,

Keeping the campaign positive. Disagree on that one. Obama is just good at using surrogates to do his dirty work.[/quote]

I’m not so sure. The fact that there are tons of independent people throwing around all kinds of tripe makes it difficult to just assume everyone is a surrogate. The fact that everyone routinely talks about surrogates makes it very easy to believe.

And where exactly is this message coming from? I can see this as a great spin of “bittergate”, but maybe you are getting it from somewhere else? Or, maybe CNN is a surrogate for Obama when they report on exit polling results?

You have no idea what I do or don’t know. However, I can tell you that you are completely changing the nature of what I said. I did not say he was an oppressed victim of racism. Racism isn’t something that requires oppression in order to have happened. Neither do you have to be poor in order to be the victim of racism, bigotry or ignorance.

LMFAO!

[quote]Right, something the press has failed a miserably in the rush to anoint the new black Jesus President. Obama�??s rhetoric does not match his past actions.

Now America will probably end up with a John McCain as President who is not the �??maverick�?? moderate of old. Hopefully he is just pandering to shore up his right wing base but I am not so sure.
[/quote]

Right, and maybe if he becomes the nominee, and he participates in a presidential election, then you’ll have all the time in the world to get to know the man. Unfortunately, it won’t make any difference, the politics of the day have already made up your mind for you, and you are now just finding more and more reasons to hold your point of view.

33

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No his grandmother didn’t express the views of other whites at the time. She and her husband were both progressive in that sense. The incident Obama was mentioning in his speech as an example of her racial views he describes in “Dreams from my Father.” His grandmother was afraid of getting mugged by a black man because the man was acting aggressively while she and young Obama were waiting at the bus stop. It was only because the bus showed up that she was saved. You can buy the book and read it though (pages 88-91):

“Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head.”

Obama’s white grandfather actually went out of the way to chastise another white man for making a racial slur against Obama while they were at a restaurant. Obama’s grandparents were progressive.[/quote]

How in the hell do you call this throwing her under the bus? From what you’ve said, I’m just not seeing it.

[quote]The woman is a definite shrew. She lights him up in public and interrupts him when he’s speaking. She has a shrill tone and is vindictive.
[/quote]

Well, maybe we should take back women’s right to vote and keep them pregnant and barefoot like the good old days…

34

[quote]vroom wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
No his grandmother didn’t express the views of other whites at the time. She and her husband were both progressive in that sense. The incident Obama was mentioning in his speech as an example of her racial views he describes in “Dreams from my Father.” His grandmother was afraid of getting mugged by a black man because the man was acting aggressively while she and young Obama were waiting at the bus stop. It was only because the bus showed up that she was saved. You can buy the book and read it though (pages 88-91):

“Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head.”

Obama’s white grandfather actually went out of the way to chastise another white man for making a racial slur against Obama while they were at a restaurant. Obama’s grandparents were progressive.

How in the hell do you call this throwing her under the bus? From what you’ve said, I’m just not seeing it.
[/quote]

He’s referring to this:

[quote]Barack Obama Said:
I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than I can my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street…
[/quote]

Later Obama “clarified” by saying:

[quote]Barack Obama Said:
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.
[/quote]

I think now you can see how turning that passage in his book into his grandmother “confessing her fear of black men” could be considered “throwing her under the bus”. For many people that was compounded by referring to her as a “typical white person.”

35

[quote]How in the hell do you call this throwing her under the bus? From what you’ve said, I’m just not seeing it.
[/quote]

What Moriarty said. He (obama) took that incident and made it out to be that his grandmother was confessing fear of black men, which is absurd. She thought she was going to get mugged by a particular black man.

How you extrapolated that from my observations on Obama’s wife is anyone’s guess. Generally, it’s not cool to disrespect your spouse in front of people, but maybe you’re just not married and don’t know these things.

36

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What Moriarty said. He (obama) took that incident and made it out to be that his grandmother was confessing fear of black men, which is absurd. She thought she was going to get mugged by a particular black man.[/quote]

Seeing as how it was his own grandmother, and the incident happened a fair while ago in the past, I’d give Obama the benefit of knowing his grandmother better than any of us…

I’m just trying to see where the heck you were coming from. I haven’t seen her disrespecting her spouse… if it happened, I’ve missed it so far.

37

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Obama breaks with Chicago church…”

What an act of courage, at this late hour, after it has hurt him politically, and not a minute before.

Judgment.[/quote]

Yes, it seems all agree it was good judgement.

38

[quote]lixy wrote:
Obama breaks with Chicago church

Why do I feel BB is very disappointed…[/quote]

Actually, this just confirms that I have been correct all along - and that Obama is a bit lacking in judgment, particularly when it comes to radical leftists (maybe it’s all that associating with radical leftists that he’s done - probably deadens his ear to how their rhetoric sounds to average voters).

39

And the voters aren’t forgetting either - recall, these polls are of voters in the Democratic primary (I’m sure even more independents and moderate Republicans will care):

[i]Voters Don’t Forget Rev. Wright
By MARY JACOBY
June 4, 2008

Some worrying signs for Barack Obama emerged Tuesday from the final two primaries of the long Democratic presidential nominating race.

With the nomination all but sewed up, the Illinois Democrat showed weaknesses in South Dakota in particular that rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign has warned could haunt him in November.

According to early exit polls, voters Tuesday appeared to have strong concerns about his two decades of membership in Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

More than a third of voters in South Dakota said the issue was important to them, following Sen. Obama’s announcement this week that he would leave his church after inflammatory statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and others from the Trinity pulpit. Of those voters, about two-thirds voted for Sen. Clinton, according to early exit polls.

In Montana, voters also appeared to have doubts about the Trinity controversy. Nearly a third said the news that Sen. Obama had severed his ties with his church was important, and more than half of those voters supported Sen. Clinton.

Trinity is a predominately black church on the South Side of Chicago, and the Rev. Wright had preached about black empowerment. He had also made many controversial statements, including suggesting the federal government had spread HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in order to harm African-Americans.

Voters in both Montana and South Dakota are overwhelmingly white.

In South Dakota, Sen. Clinton dominated among the elderly, less educated and women voters who have been the mainstay of her campaign. In Montana, however, she lagged behind among those voters, even losing among women, about half of whom said they voted for Sen. Obama, the early polling data showed.

One positive sign for Sen. Obama was that he did well with independent voters, particularly in Montana, which had an open primary, compared with South Dakota, which limited voting to Democrats. About a third of voters in Montana said they aren’t aligned with any party – and two-thirds of that group voted for Sen. Obama.

In South Dakota, about 15% of voters called themselves independent, and that group broke about evenly between the two candidates.

There also appears to be support for an Obama-Clinton ticket in the fall against the expected Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. More than half of voters in the Democratic primaries in both states said they would support such a ticket, and Sen. Clinton told supporters on a conference call Tuesday she would be open to the idea.

While some analysts have said that the long nominating fight could weaken Democratic chances in November, a majority in both states said the extended primary race had energized the party. The exit poll was conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool at 20 polling places in each state.

[/i]