Obama's Pastor

Uh, the Iraquis DID dump the dollar—like just before the US invaded. Back on it now.

Afraid this thing’s a bit of a double edged sword. My country got a free ride for a long time in keeping with Nixon’s statement
that we should be the richest nation in the
world. I believe, along with a lot of investors that the dollar is doomed tho it may bounce back a time or two.

Don’t know why you are going to laugh your gluteus maximus off over it but I’m afraid you’ll get your chance. Sort of like the US dollar was really backed by oil for a long time, other people’s oil at that. I’m not
bragging about that but that’s the way I see
it. Quite a few others benefitted from the US’s largesse.

Check out the UN budget, foreign aid to various countries, tsunami relief, etc. May not be a laughing matter
for long but whatever.

The Saudis wouldn’t know what oil was if not for the Brits and Americans.

As for fostering conflicts in Latin America,
nobody HAS to foster conflicts there—not the US or anyone else. Read a little history.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gael wrote:

His middle name is emotionally loaded, and to say “Barack Hussein Obama” in every instance as Fox has done, is cheap and unfair. It’s also blatantly transparent. There is no point in doing this.

Actually, there is. Obama wants to have it both ways. In an interview with Tavis Smiley, Obama was more than happy to trade on his name as generating a certain response in the world:

[i]Tavis: They would look at the U.S. differently for what reason or reasons?

Obama: Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush, to start with.[/i]

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200710/20071018_obama.html

So, here we have Obama happy to use his name when he thinks it can help him, but apparently is it off-limits when he thinks it can hurt him.

That isn’t going to work. Once you make it an issue, your opponents get the same opportunity to discuss it.[/quote]

I don’t think anything should be “off limits” in a country with free speech. Barack is free to use anything he thinks will help him win. Fox is entitled to whatever smear tactics they wish to use. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a cheap and underhanded tactic. While it was weak, I do not view Obama’s response as cheap and underhanded.

Any conspiracy theorists (think about a black in a helicopter instead of a black helicopter)think this whole thing may have
been scripted, choreographed and rehearsed and that now it’s just being tweaked?
People who map out campaign strategy think several moves ahead, like a good chess player.

[quote]Gael wrote:

I don’t think anything should be “off limits” in a country with free speech. Barack is free to use anything he thinks will help him win. Fox is entitled to whatever smear tactics they wish to use. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a cheap and underhanded tactic. While it was weak, I do not view Obama’s response as cheap and underhanded.[/quote]

But there is nothing “cheap and underhanded” about discussing the negative implications of his name when Obama has tried to raise the positive benefits of his name.

That is a fair and good discussion to have - it isn’t a smear to look at the other side of the coin, and it is hypocritical to suggest that is an underhanded tactic after Obama himself raised his name as a legitimate political issue.

This is part and parcel of the troubles of the Obama campaign - it has an unavoidable “glass jaw”. Neither Obama nor his surrogates are prepared to intelligently address counterargument - every counterargument is met with a charge of bad faith on the opponent’s part. That can be sustained in the long haul of the campaign till November 2008.

Does anyone seriously think that Obama (or either of the other 2 for that matter) will be able to deal with this?

"Debt Reckoning: U.S. Receives a Margin Call
By LIZ RAPPAPORT and JUSTIN LAHART
March 15, 2008

The U.S. is at the receiving end of a massive margin call: Across the economy, wary lenders are demanding that borrowers put up more collateral or sell assets to reduce debts.

Global investors are pulling money from the U.S., steepening the decline of the U.S. dollar and sending it below 100 yen for the first time in a dozen years. Against a trade-weighted basket of major currencies, the dollar has fallen 14.3% over the past year, according to the Federal Reserve. Yesterday it hit another record low against the euro, falling 2.1% this week to close at 1.567 dollars per euro.

Hopes are fading fast that the U.S. economy was suffering from a thirst for liquidity that standard Fed remedies could quench. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, speaking in Washington yesterday, said he sees “an increasing risk that the principal policy tool on which we have relied – the Federal Reserve lending to banks in one form or another” – is like “fighting a virus with antibiotics.”

What sort of eloquence will Barry use when the unemployment rate hits 25%?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But there is nothing “cheap and underhanded” about discussing the negative implications of his name when Obama has tried to raise the positive benefits of his name. [/quote]

The madrassa bit was as cheap a shot as they can get.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gael wrote:

His middle name is emotionally loaded, and to say “Barack Hussein Obama” in every instance as Fox has done, is cheap and unfair. It’s also blatantly transparent. There is no point in doing this.

Actually, there is. Obama wants to have it both ways. In an interview with Tavis Smiley, Obama was more than happy to trade on his name as generating a certain response in the world:

[i]Tavis: They would look at the U.S. differently for what reason or reasons?

Obama: Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush, to start with.[/i]

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200710/20071018_obama.html

So, here we have Obama happy to use his name when he thinks it can help him, but apparently is it off-limits when he thinks it can hurt him.

That isn’t going to work. Once you make it an issue, your opponents get the same opportunity to discuss it.

And we see again the Obama weakness - he is fine as long as no one dare ask any tough questions or force him to do something other than be a pop-culture celebrity candidate. This would be fine were he trying out for a new TV series entitled “The West Wing 2”, but he is running for the Presidency in the real world.

Obama has shown he is the incredible shrinking candidate - the brighter the light shines, the less he takes up the stage.[/quote]

odd to be so much more popular than the other candidates.

[quote]lixy wrote:

The madrassa bit was as cheap a shot as they can get.[/quote]

Who was discussing the “madrassa bit”, troll?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Yes, but the relevant facts are: Racism should discouraged at every level regardless of which race that it is involved. And at this point I’m just about convinced that Obama is a racist. His wife obviously holds deep seated hostility toward white America. His Pastor is one of the most hateful bigots that I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to.

Tell me…how far away from these two people is Obama in his thinking regarding “white America”?

No self-respecting individual who is truly against racism should even consider voting for Barrack Hussein Obama.

And I have a feeling there is going to be more to come on this and other fronts regarding this unknown candidate. [/quote]

Once again, Blacks have reasons to be mad at Whites in America. Ideally, they should be able to put all that slavery, segregation and abuse aside and start fresh, but it’s not the way things work in real life.

That being said, I don’t think Obama considers himself much of a black person to start with.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

The madrassa bit was as cheap a shot as they can get.

Who was discussing the “madrassa bit”, troll? [/quote]

Gael brought up Fox’s smear campaign against Obama. You jumped in and, in effect, defended Fox.

I think the “madrassa bit” is indefensible and illustrates Gael’s point in a more clear-cut manner.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Once again, Blacks have reasons to be mad at Whites in America. Ideally, they should be able to put all that slavery, segregation and abuse aside and start fresh, but it’s not the way things work in real life.

That being said, I don’t think Obama considers himself much of a black person to start with.[/quote]

Man, just to be fair, whites weren’t the only ones engaging in slavery. South America, more notably Brazil and Portugal, were more notorious slave owners than “white” America ever was.

If you ever fancy a trip to Los Angeles CA., you should visit the L.A. Public Library. One of the first things you will notice upon entering the library is the big mural on the ceiling of the library of South American slave owners enjoying a lovely feast, while the Mexican slaves happily enjoy cleaning up after them.

This slavery issue really torques my jaw, mainly because one “race” thinks that they have had it worse then another race. This is not true. Mexicans have had to endure just as much, if not, MORE racism than blacks ever had.

But of course, it isn’t racism when it involves any other race EXECEPT blacks…

Obama is much less black than most other blacks in the US. His mother was a white woman and his father was from one of the more semitic African tribes.

Obama’s pastor is just another white-hating black man, but whites must accept anti-white hatred because it is thoughtcrime to do otherwise.

Again, how would you view McCain if Pat Robertson were his weekly pastor, and married him and his wife?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Best thing I’ve read on the subject:

"Obama really shouldn�??t have to answer for what Wright says, but I also think that his loyalty to Wright should not be an occasion for bashing the man. There are plenty of things in his record, or the lack thereof, that provide reasons to find fault with Obama. Despite the manifest unfairness about the way that the Paul campaign was treated over statements in decades-old newsletters that were objectively far less offensive than things Wright has said in very recent memory, especially when compared to the pass Obama has received and continues to receive from the media, and despite the profoundly dishonest double standard applied to Paul and Obama, I am not interested in criticising Obama along these lines. Obviously, I don�??t share Wright�??s views, and Obama claims not to share all of them, but I have to ask seriously what kind of man Obama would be if he disowned his spiritual father for the sake of the approval of others (who may not give their approval even if he did what is being demanded). No one that I would want to entrust with any office of importance, that�??s for sure.

That is the real difference between Obama�??s modest distancing of himself from Wright and McCain�??s embarrassing embrace of Hagee. McCain does not belong to Hagee�??s congregation, he has no duties or obligations to him, and yet he welcomes Hagee�??s support in the most cynical fashion. We take McCain�??s claim that he disagrees with Hagee�??s dreadful views at face value, while he receives credit from Hagee�??s endorsement as evidence that social conservatives and pro-Israel evangelicals have given him their seal of approval. Hagee is absurdly accepted as a mainstream figure because he strikes the �??right�?? pose on Israel policy, whatever his own reasons for doing so, while Wright receives opprobrium at least in part because he does not. At the same time, Obama rejects Wright�??s ludicrous and objectionable views, but for some reason he must go beyond that and publicly turn against the man who brought him into the church. That strikes me as a deeply disturbing demand. If Obama is to be judged by the far-left company he keeps, one need only peruse his voting record.

No doubt Obama would be better off politicaly, and it would help his career, if he dropped Wright like a stone, but he would be a far more respectable and decent man if he refused to throw his mentor under the bus to appease the media, his critics and even his admirers. I still wouldn�??t vote for him, but I could have some respect for him as someone with a degree of integrity."

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/13/hagee-and-wright/[/quote]

I think he looked at the right facts and came to a wrong conclusion. How can it be that political pandering for votes - typical politician behavior of trying to appeal to some of the more extreme elements of the base during an election cycle - is better than buying in to someone, for the better part of two decades - as a “spiritual leader” who spews this kind of stuff?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Add his refusal to wear the American flag to the mix and he looks pretty bad. I am voting for Hillary next month.

He looks bad because he doesn’t wear a pin?
Could you be a less serious person?[/quote]

His pastor is a raving lunatic, his wife has NEVER been proud of America until Obama became a candidate for president, he refuses to wear an American flag. These are not good signs.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And people chose these creatures over Ron Paul, and laughed the man off the stage. We’re fucking doomed.[/quote]

Ron Paul is another odious racist. Stop bringing him up. He is done.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Once again, Blacks have reasons to be mad at Whites in America. Ideally, they should be able to put all that slavery, segregation and abuse aside and start fresh, but it’s not the way things work in real life.

That being said, I don’t think Obama considers himself much of a black person to start with.

Man, just to be fair, whites weren’t the only ones engaging in slavery. South America, more notably Brazil and Portugal, were more notorious slave owners than “white” America ever was.
…[/quote]

It was the Muslims that sold the blacks into slavery.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
His pastor is a raving lunatic, [/quote]

Most of them are.

Hence the whole “change” platform. There’s not much to be proud about a country that aggresses nations on the other side of the planet.

What do you mean? Is it a requirement?