Obama's Pastor

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?

Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people who, in my estimation (though not in mine alone), go to church for appearance’s sake.

But are you saying obama goes to church for the sake of appearance ?

Either that or he hates white people. Since half his family is white I doubt that. I have no other way to reconcile in my mind how he listened to 20 years of idiotic rants like that in church unless he was just going to church to fit into the community and build support for his political career.

I’ve already told you how. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. The fact that he has white family members should stand out to you how he can see both sides equally, instead of painting him as someone so ignorant that he hates half of himself.

I don’t think he hates white people. I think his attending that particular church was pandering to the local community. Now he is running for a national office and he is pandering to the national sensibilities.

That is why he is addressing this issue of race now instead of years ago. Because he is forced to. Not because he is a uniter, a special politician or any of that other crap. [/quote]

My perspective:
You should be able to see why he would avoid tackling a race issue early on considering the basic way most people view anything regarding race…ie, to become extremely defensive and act like the other party is less aware of reality.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The Tuskegee Experiment is something historical that shouldn’t be forgotten, and it’s an object lesson of why it’s so bad to look at other human beings as less valuable because they have different genetics or because they are poor or uneducated. To the extent that people are using it as evidence for a conspiracy theory, it’s just allowing it to continue to harm them (and using bad logic to boot).
[/quote]

It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. This country lost its right to take offense to “conspiracy theory” the moment they created a conspiracy by killing off blacks with a treatable disease.

I totally disagree with Obama’s politics but I just wish he would tell honky to get bent.

Are we really worried what this guy’s pastor thinks? What about that guy he roomed with in college? Or that other guy who once said that one thing…?

Good god, have we really become such pussies?

If any of you guys need a break from the political/racial chitchat, join the T-Nation fantasy baseball league. There’s plenty of spots left.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2014275

Sorry for the interruption, do continue.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

The Tuskegee Experiment is something historical that shouldn’t be forgotten, and it’s an object lesson of why it’s so bad to look at other human beings as less valuable because they have different genetics or because they are poor or uneducated. To the extent that people are using it as evidence for a conspiracy theory, it’s just allowing it to continue to harm them (and using bad logic to boot).

Professor X wrote:
It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. This country lost its right to take offense to “conspiracy theory” the moment they created a conspiracy by killing off blacks with a treatable disease.[/quote]

Umm, are you trying to tell me I lose some right because some white people acted badly in the past?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

The Tuskegee Experiment is something historical that shouldn’t be forgotten, and it’s an object lesson of why it’s so bad to look at other human beings as less valuable because they have different genetics or because they are poor or uneducated. To the extent that people are using it as evidence for a conspiracy theory, it’s just allowing it to continue to harm them (and using bad logic to boot).

Professor X wrote:
It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. This country lost its right to take offense to “conspiracy theory” the moment they created a conspiracy by killing off blacks with a treatable disease.

Umm, are you trying to tell me I lose some right because some white people acted badly in the past?[/quote]

I am more than sure I wrote exactly what I meant.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?

Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people who, in my estimation (though not in mine alone), go to church for appearance’s sake.

But are you saying obama goes to church for the sake of appearance ?

Either that or he hates white people. Since half his family is white I doubt that. I have no other way to reconcile in my mind how he listened to 20 years of idiotic rants like that in church unless he was just going to church to fit into the community and build support for his political career.

I’ve already told you how. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. The fact that he has white family members should stand out to you how he can see both sides equally, instead of painting him as someone so ignorant that he hates half of himself.

I don’t think he hates white people. I think his attending that particular church was pandering to the local community. Now he is running for a national office and he is pandering to the national sensibilities.

That is why he is addressing this issue of race now instead of years ago. Because he is forced to. Not because he is a uniter, a special politician or any of that other crap.

My perspective:
You should be able to see why he would avoid tackling a race issue early on considering the basic way most people view anything regarding race…ie, to become extremely defensive and act like the other party is less aware of reality.[/quote]

I understand why he kept his mouth shut years ago but I think he could have tackled it a year ago. Then it would have been real and from the heart.

The only reason he did now is because he was pressured into it.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?

Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people who, in my estimation (though not in mine alone), go to church for appearance’s sake.

But are you saying obama goes to church for the sake of appearance ?

Either that or he hates white people. Since half his family is white I doubt that. I have no other way to reconcile in my mind how he listened to 20 years of idiotic rants like that in church unless he was just going to church to fit into the community and build support for his political career.

Hilarious, thankfully we don’t have to rely on your mind, which is barely able to muster the ability to fasten your Velcro shoes.

[/quote]

What is so hilarious? That is far and away the most likely explaination for his actions. Otherwise he is a combination of an idiot and a racist, which I do not believe.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

The Tuskegee Experiment is something historical that shouldn’t be forgotten, and it’s an object lesson of why it’s so bad to look at other human beings as less valuable because they have different genetics or because they are poor or uneducated. To the extent that people are using it as evidence for a conspiracy theory, it’s just allowing it to continue to harm them (and using bad logic to boot).

It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. This country lost its right to take offense to “conspiracy theory” the moment they created a conspiracy by killing off blacks with a treatable disease.[/quote]

COINTELPRO, biological weapons tested on US cities, soldiers as guinea pigs to study radiation poisoning, the treatment of the AIM…

You do not need to be black to get fucked by the government. It helps though.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The belief is causing more harm today than the supposed conspiracy.[/quote]

The belief in conspiracy theories per se, or this particular theory?

[quote]orion wrote:

You do not need to be black to get fucked by the government. It helps though.[/quote]

No argument there.

[i]By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM �?? Sen. Barack Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter �?? which calls for the murder of Jews �?? to America’s Declaration of Independence.

The Hamas piece was published on the “Pastor’s Page” of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
The revelation follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed “concern” about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
In his July 22, 2007, church newsletter, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the publication as a “deputy of the political bureau of Hamas.” A photo image of the piece was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog, which first brought attention to it. The Hamas article was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism.

According to senior Israeli security officials, Marzook, who resides in Syria alongside Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal, is considered the “brains” behind Hamas, designing much of the terror group’s policies and ideology. Israel possesses what it says is a large volume of specific evidence that Marzook has been directly involved in calling for or planning scores of Hamas terrorist offensives, including deadly suicide bombings. He was also accused of attempting to set up a Hamas network in the U.S.

Marzook’s original piece was titled, “Hamas’ stand” but was re-titled “A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle” by Obama’s church newsletter. The newsletter also referred to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” and added in its introduction that Marzook was addressing Hamas’ goals for “all of Palestine.”
In the manifesto, Marzook refers to Hamas’ “resistance” �?? the group’s perpetuation of anti-Israel terrorism targeting civilians �?? as “legal resistance,” which, he argues, is “explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
The Convention, which refers to the rights of people living under occupation, does not support suicide bombings or rocket attacks against civilian population centers, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America noted.
Marzook refers to Hamas’ official charter as “an essentially revolutionary document” and compares the violent creed to the Declaration of Independence, which, Marzook states, “simply did not countenance any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time.”

Hamas’ charter calls for the murder of Jews. Among its platforms is a statement that the “[resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!’”

In his piece, Marzook says Hamas only targets Israel and denies that Hamas’ war is meant to be waged against the U.S., even though Hamas officials have threatened America, and Hamas’ charter calls for Muslims to “pursue the cause of the Movement (Hamas), all over the globe.”
Trinity Church did not respond to a phone message requesting comment.

Obama’s campaign also did not reply to phone and e-mail requests today for comment.

Obama aide wants talks with terrorists
WND reported in January that Malley, an Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley’s contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat’s refusal to make peace for the talks’ failure.
In February 2006, after Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and amid a U.S. and Israeli attempt to isolate the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, Malley wrote an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun advocating international aid to the terror group’s newly formed government.

“The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians’ lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back,” wrote Malley in a piece entitled, “Making the Best of Hamas’ Victory.”
Malley contended the election of Hamas expressed Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cutoff in the event of an Islamist success.”

Malley said the U.S. should not “discourage third-party unofficial contacts with [Hamas] in an attempt to moderate it.”
In an op-ed in the Washington Post in January coauthored by Arafat adviser Hussein Agha, Malley �?? using what could be perceived as anti-Israel language �?? urged Israel’s negotiating partner, Abbas, to reunite with Hamas.
“A renewed national compact and the return of Hamas to the political fold would upset Israel’s strategy of perpetuating Palestinian geographic and political division,” wrote Malley.
He further petitioned Israel to hold talks with Hamas.
“An arrangement between Israel and Hamas could advance both sides’ interests,” Malley wrote.
In numerous other op-eds, Malley advocated a policy of engagement with Hamas.[/i]

Obama is wrapped up in Black Liberation Theology. This movement sympathizes with the Hamas struggle, just like they did for the S. American Marxist struggle. The fabricated AIDS myth has been a part of their false claims for years and is a tactic to gain sympathy.

Obama is neck deep into a way of thinking that is far removed for the majority if Americans. As more and more questions get raised I think the veneer will start to fail and Obama will be exposed as the socialist he is.

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:

The Tuskegee Experiment is something historical that shouldn’t be forgotten, and it’s an object lesson of why it’s so bad to look at other human beings as less valuable because they have different genetics or because they are poor or uneducated. To the extent that people are using it as evidence for a conspiracy theory, it’s just allowing it to continue to harm them (and using bad logic to boot).

Professor X wrote:
It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. This country lost its right to take offense to “conspiracy theory” the moment they created a conspiracy by killing off blacks with a treatable disease.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Umm, are you trying to tell me I lose some right because some white people acted badly in the past?

Professor X wrote:
I am more than sure I wrote exactly what I meant. [/quote]

Society doesn’t have rights. I have rights and you have rights. Rights are individual.

Both. Conspiracy theories in general interfere with focusing on actual causes for problems. This particular theory harms both its adherents (via their disinclination to seek medical services) and everyone else (via both the health issue and due to the further poisoning of race relations).

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I totally disagree with Obama’s politics but I just wish he would tell honky to get bent.

Are we really worried what this guy’s pastor thinks? What about that guy he roomed with in college? Or that other guy who once said that one thing…?

Good god, have we really become such pussies?[/quote]

Are you serious? There’s something odd about considering a Presidential candidate’s social connections? Especially if one is a raging bigot?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It isn’t “bad logic”. The “logic” is spot on whether they are right about HIV or not. [/quote]

BTW, how is the logic spot on if it’s wrong?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

The belief is causing more harm today than the supposed conspiracy.

orion wrote:

The belief in conspiracy theories per se, or this particular theory?

Both. Conspiracy theories in general interfere with focusing on actual causes for problems. This particular theory harms both its adherents (via their disinclination to seek medical services) and everyone else (via both the health issue and due to the further poisoning of race relations).[/quote]

But there are conspiracies all around us. How would it help to deny reality?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I totally disagree with Obama’s politics but I just wish he would tell honky to get bent.

Are we really worried what this guy’s pastor thinks? What about that guy he roomed with in college? Or that other guy who once said that one thing…?

Good god, have we really become such pussies?

Are you serious? There’s something odd about considering a Presidential candidate’s social connections? Especially if one is a raging bigot?[/quote]

If it is so important, then why don’t we immediately start full investigations of ALL social connections to ALL of the candidates, scour their ministers comments, their friends comments etc, and splice them into 1 minute youtube clips.

The most important aspect of the Rev. comments (the 3 minutes of them out how many total preaching minutes) is the enormous distinction between his seeming hopelessness and Obama’s hopefulness.

Also, if he was such a huge influence on Obama, then let’s see the footage (which presumably will be 20 years minus 3 minutes long) of the inspirational sermons he’s given, the uplifting stuff that one would assume HAS inspired Obama.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? There’s something odd about considering a Presidential candidate’s social connections? Especially if one is a raging bigot?[/quote]

Associating Obama to a “raging bigot” is the same shit some in the media tried to do to Paul. I don’t think the pastor is a bigot in the least because I don’t feel he thinks that way of all white people. Besides, some of what he said has truth to it. Frankly, all of this indignation over such PC bullshit makes me sick to my stomach.

We cannot control the actions, beliefs, or opinions of those we surround ourself with nor do I think we should be held to account for the things they say. Last time I checked it’s still a free country and we are allowed to express our opinions no matter how unpopular.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Last time I checked it’s still a free country and we are allowed to express our opinions no matter how unpopular.[/quote]

You are also free to be judged on your opinions and associations.