Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: dada on March 16, 2008, 08:19:41 am
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html
(CNN) -- A Chicago minister who delivered a fiery sermon about Sen. Hillary Clinton having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race because she is white is no longer a part of the Obama campaign.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee, campaign sources told CNN.
In another sermon, Wright had said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself.
Obama denounced some of Wright's sermons on Friday, telling CNN's Anderson Cooper: "These are a series of incendiary statements that I can't object to strongly enough."
Earlier Friday, before the announcement of Wright's departure from the Obama camp, the Illinois senator denounced some of the ministers's sermons, calling them "inflammatory and appalling."
Well, there we go. Good news for Hillary!
-
good thing he was never a part of the obama campaign, but hey let's ignore facts
cnn
-
Well, no need to attribute the controversy to the media. This man has been in the pulpit for years, preaching to a crowd of which Obama was a part. While this isn't as bad as the Ferraro incident, and Wright is not actually part of Obama's campaign, there's certainly a connection between these two, which is why this is a controversy to begin with.
-
It is a media driven scandal, completely. They have to balance things so as to not seem impartial (or in the case of fox news be completely racist and ask IF A WHITE CHURCH EXISTED YOU'D ALL BE PISSSSSST) Aside from the simple fact that everything he says is pretty much factually correct (unlike ferraro), one can understand however why obama would distance himself from this, the Clinton campaign is essentially trying to paint (lol) him as some kind of white hater which is kind of hilarious.
-
dude people who are at least AWARE OF REALITY knows that Clinton has too much of a small chance of winning. But the media will not admit this because the candidacy race is a entretaining show and therefore suspense sells.
So you can see here how there is a lot of sensationalism created by the media
-
In another sermon, Wright had said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself.
Is this really so controversial? There's truth to this, having nothing to do with the reasons listed by charlatans like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
I wish Clinton supporters could just see right through the hypocrisy of her campaign. People get wrapped up in so much of the bullshit surrounding the personal lives of candidates! It is kind of a shame though that Obama ever had to associate himself with Wright's obscure little church.
-
It is kind of a shame though that Obama ever had to associate himself with Wright's obscure little church.
Heaven forbid anyone ever exercise their right to freedom of religion. My dad was raving about it today he was all like OBAMA IS IN A CULT THE REPORTERS SAID PEOPLE FROM THAT CHURCH WON'T EVEN TALK TO PEOPLE AND OTHER MINISTERS FROM THE SAME RELIGION SAID THEY WERE WEIRD. Why does it matter if one of Obama's friends is in a strange religion or even if Obama himself is. He has not shown any propensity to be some sort of religious fanatic unlike some candidates I can mention, why should it matter that, GASP, he has belief in a religion HOW DARE HE.
-
not gonna say much on the pastor dude, (i pretty much agree with him), but no one ever said shit about mccain/gw bush/any of the other candidates when they were collectively sucking jerry falwells dick.
-
Heaven forbid anyone ever exercise their right to freedom of religion. My dad was raving about it today he was all like OBAMA IS IN A CULT THE REPORTERS SAID PEOPLE FROM THAT CHURCH WON'T EVEN TALK TO PEOPLE AND OTHER MINISTERS FROM THE SAME RELIGION SAID THEY WERE WEIRD. Why does it matter if one of Obama's friends is in a strange religion or even if Obama himself is. He has not shown any propensity to be some sort of religious fanatic unlike some candidates I can mention, why should it matter that, GASP, he has belief in a religion HOW DARE HE.
Uh, well, wait a second. It still is a shame that he has to associate with any religion, let alone THAT particular religion. It's a shame because the media points out the stupidity of those that lead his church and unfortunately he gets connected with it. That is what's shameful, not the fact that he's just apart of it. Candidates must choose to be part of a religion, otherwise I think their chances at candidacy are lost, and indeed I think it goes without saying that it's TOO BAD that Obama had to choose this bizarre one to begin with. Of course he hasn't shown himself to be like Huckabee or Romney or whoever else, he understands perfectly well not to let his religious beliefs get in the way of his political decisions, but that he made himself strategically vulnerable by associating with Wright's lot is still unfortunate.
-
I take umbrage to your post, sorry.
Have you ever considered that Obama himself is a true believer in christ? Please read Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope.
Also his church isn't some "weird" church at all. The only thing one could consider weird about it is how afrocentric the church is, and it is pretty ridiculous to think it's STRANGE AND ODD for a mostly black parish not to celebrate their heritage.
Also as has been said before hundreds of times, OBAMA'S PASTOR IS MOSTLY CORRECT.
-
If Obama is having to distance himself from the church, and publicly state that Wright's comments have "pained and angered" him, and that he "vehemently disagreed" with the statements, then I think there's something negative and possibly weird about the church. My point is JUST that it's unfortunate he had to make himself vulnerable by associating with the church, and that he has to defend himself against accusations which have nothing to do with his beliefs as a politician. I am not even ragging on Obama!
It's like I'm not even disagreeing with you, my comment was more concerning the media's infatuation with "bullshit" surrounding candidates.
-
I take umbrage to your post, sorry.
Why are you sorry for your opinion? I think your post is ignorant. I'm not sorry.
Have you ever considered that Obama himself is a true believer in christ? Please read Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope.
Why must one read Obama's books to know that he has his head in the clouds and hides behind buzzwords like hope and change? How vague! If a nuclear warhead goes off in Tulsa, OK, that would be "change." I like specific platforms, not vague mantras. That aside, the "True Christian™" phrase is entirely ignorant. I assume that you think you are a True Christian™ and everyone else who believes like you is also a True Christian™. I would assume that people whose beliefs differ from yours are not True Christians™. Is this a correct assumption? I will concede that Obama is a Christian. Anyone who believes that Jesus was divine is a Christian, whether other Christians say they are or not. However, belief in Jesus has very little to do with making a person a competent leader. It's entirely inconsequential. Set aside Jesus when discussing the politics of a church or you will end up in an impenetrable web of tangled theology. Jesus shit aside, Obama's church is a racist organisation that dwells in ignorance. Obama's pastor's beliefs in blacks being a new "Chosen People" and black culture being superior to other cultures is not only racist but entirely unrelated to the beliefs of Christianity.
Also his church isn't some "weird" church at all. The only thing one could consider weird about it is how afrocentric the church is, and it is pretty ridiculous to think it's STRANGE AND ODD for a mostly black parish not to celebrate their heritage.
It's not odd to celebrate your heritage. It's odd to do it in a church. Aren't churches supposed to be inclusive? Focusing your ministry on blacks and raising blacks above all other people is divisive and ignorant. I would argue the same for any church that is white-based. It's not weird, any more than Christian theology is weird, but it is racist and wrong. (Clarification, before rabid Obamites jump at me: Obama isn't necessarily a racist, but his church is most definitely racist.)
Also as has been said before hundreds of times, OBAMA'S PASTOR IS MOSTLY CORRECT.
Correct? How so? Do you think that the opinion that blacks are superior to whites and the myth that Jesus was a zombie are now facts? I don't want to get too far into a debate with you because you seem like an idiot.
I support Obama for several good reasons. You seem to support him because you're an idiot who was duped by his "change" platform.
My new theory: Obama was a homeless man on the streets of Chicago begging for spare change. People heard his cries for change and started blindly following him and supporting him on his quest for change. Now he's a few steps away from being the leader of the free world. It just goes to show that anything is possible in America if you're vague enough.
Also, hundreds of people say that the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the Earth. Sorry, but truth is not decided by the popular vote.
-
sup bill oreilly holy shit. Could you... come up with some of your own ideas that don't sound like lines ripped from fox news?
also this was in my local paper this morning:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/03/17/park17.ART_ART_03-17-08_A7_L29L77Q.html?sid=101
kinda hits on why I am getting tired of all the candidates and the whole nomination process in general (and this is the first time through for me. sigh)
-
My new theory: Obama was a homeless man on the streets of Chicago begging for spare change. People heard his cries for change and started blindly following him and supporting him on his quest for change. Now he's a few steps away from being the leader of the free world. It just goes to show that anything is possible in America if you're vague enough.
douche and turd sandwich!
-
Why are you sorry for your opinion? I think your post is ignorant. I'm not sorry.
it's called being nice? have you seriously never heard someone say "sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree"?
Why must one read Obama's books to know that he has his head in the clouds and hides behind buzzwords like hope and change? How vague! If a nuclear warhead goes off in Tulsa, OK, that would be "change." I like specific platforms, not vague mantras. That aside, the "True Christian™" phrase is entirely ignorant. I assume that you think you are a True Christian™ and everyone else who believes like you is also a True Christian™. I would assume that people whose beliefs differ from yours are not True Christians™. Is this a correct assumption? I will concede that Obama is a Christian. Anyone who believes that Jesus was divine is a Christian, whether other Christians say they are or not. However, belief in Jesus has very little to do with making a person a competent leader. It's entirely inconsequential. Set aside Jesus when discussing the politics of a church or you will end up in an impenetrable web of tangled theology. Jesus shit aside, Obama's church is a racist organisation that dwells in ignorance. Obama's pastor's beliefs in blacks being a new "Chosen People" and black culture being superior to other cultures is not only racist but entirely unrelated to the beliefs of Christianity.
this is far from exclusive to Senator Obama. every presidential candidacy has run on phrases and buzzwords. none of them are hiding; it's just how they sell it. the only people who believe that Senator Obama's platform is hollow and just buzzwords are those who have done no research and fallen into the belief system of the right wing pundits.
you're also wrong in assuming that what Truth meant by true christian was some sort of dogmatic dismissal of other religions. his point was that Obama is not a Christian for political reasons but for personal reasons. that's what true meant in this sense, and I can't help but feel you purposefully set up a strawman about "True Christians" to ignore this.
also you're confusing Farrakhan with Wright, I believe. there was nothing about racism. pride in one's culture, one's OPPRESSED CULTURE, is not racism. I also see nothing about blacks being a new chosen people in the article.
It's not odd to celebrate your heritage. It's odd to do it in a church. Aren't churches supposed to be inclusive? Focusing your ministry on blacks and raising blacks above all other people is divisive and ignorant. I would argue the same for any church that is white-based. It's not weird, any more than Christian theology is weird, but it is racist and wrong. (Clarification, before rabid Obamites jump at me: Obama isn't necessarily a racist, but his church is most definitely racist.)
have you been to a church ever? religion is VERY divided on racial lines. churches are NOT inclusive. hell by the very nature of religion requiring membership, they aren't inclusive. because religion is such an important aspect of culture, many churches are traditionally black, white, or Asian, or whatever. my family is Hindu but only attends the services that Bengalis will be at, not because they are racist but because the way Bengalis pray and "do" Hinduism is different from those of Gujarati or Telegu. religion and culture are tied together, and blacks do have different style churches from whites. it is not odd to celebrate your heritage in one of the few bastions of it left. I'm also not sure why you think his church is racist as opposed to Clinton's or McCain's, which probably will have an almost all white congregation. you keep saying these things, but the article in question doesn't mention them.
Correct? How so? Do you think that the opinion that blacks are superior to whites and the myth that Jesus was a zombie are now facts? I don't want to get too far into a debate with you because you seem like an idiot.
I support Obama for several good reasons. You seem to support him because you're an idiot who was duped by his "change" platform.
My new theory: Obama was a homeless man on the streets of Chicago begging for spare change. People heard his cries for change and started blindly following him and supporting him on his quest for change. Now he's a few steps away from being the leader of the free world. It just goes to show that anything is possible in America if you're vague enough.
Also, hundreds of people say that the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the Earth. Sorry, but truth is not decided by the popular vote.
this is another misrepresentation. the article in question doesn't say that. of course, it's possible he did, but you should link that instead of denigrating Truth for agreeing that America's foreign policy had a hand in 9/11 or that Barack Obama faces a difficult fight because of his race. for someone who supports Obama, you sure were quick to jump to an argument that he has no substance behind him and is only supported by fools. Truth was saying nothing about the nature of truth (heh), he was saying that yes to the statements in the article. don't attribute other arguments to him unless they are in that article!
it's also confusing that you would say Truth is an idiot based on one post, unless you've been lurking, and I say that as the first person to call Truth on his OBAMAMANIA or whatever.
basically welcome to GW and I hope this doesn't dissuade you from posting more, but I wholeheartedly disagree with most of your post!
*listens to Soulja Boy's YAAAAH*
-
it's called being nice? have you seriously never heard someone say "sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree"?
LOOK WHO'S TALKING.
-
LOOK WHO'S TALKING.
I didn't say I did it, but it's not inconceivable that Truth would!
-
yeah i got to say may have smirked a little bit when i read that too!
-
Why are you sorry for your opinion? I think your post is ignorant. [/Quote]
Whoa whoa whoa, excuse me for having some tact in my political discussions (something i've been trying to improve upon)
I'm not sorry.Why must one read Obama's books to know that he has his head in the clouds and hides behind buzzwords like hope and change? How vague! If a nuclear warhead goes off in Tulsa, OK, that would be "change." I like specific platforms, not vague mantras. That aside, the "True Christian™" phrase is entirely ignorant. I assume that you think you are a True Christian™ and everyone else who believes like you is also a True Christian™. I would assume that people whose beliefs differ from yours are not True Christians™. Is this a correct assumption? I will concede that Obama is a Christian. Anyone who believes that Jesus was divine is a Christian, whether other Christians say they are or not. However, belief in Jesus has very little to do with making a person a competent leader. It's entirely inconsequential. Set aside Jesus when discussing the politics of a church or you will end up in an impenetrable web of tangled theology. Jesus shit aside, Obama's church is a racist organisation that dwells in ignorance. Obama's pastor's beliefs in blacks being a new "Chosen People" and black culture being superior to other cultures is not only racist but entirely unrelated to the beliefs of Christianity.
Steel is correct, you are referring to Louis Farrakhan, you are confusing the two because Wright said that Farrakhan was a great black leader, which is being taken out of context constantly by the mainstream media. I think that Farrakhan has done innumerable things for the black community and should be praised for them, does that mean that I am a muslim and hate whites? As Steel said this entire post is just one ridiculous strawman after another, you know what i meant about "true christian", I was defending the fact that Obama is religious for any reason other than to dissuade people that he is a "closet atheist" or "closet muslim". Obama's pastor has never said any of these things to my knowledge, and if you know more than me than you must have dug deeper than the information that is readily available.
It's not odd to celebrate your heritage. It's odd to do it in a church. Aren't churches supposed to be inclusive? Focusing your ministry on blacks and raising blacks above all other people is divisive and ignorant. I would argue the same for any church that is white-based. It's not weird, any more than Christian theology is weird, but it is racist and wrong. (Clarification, before rabid Obamites jump at me: Obama isn't necessarily a racist, but his church is most definitely racist.)Correct? How so? Do you think that the opinion that blacks are superior to whites and the myth that Jesus was a zombie are now facts? I don't want to get too far into a debate with you because you seem like an idiot.
Have you ever actually been to a church? The parish I attend is mostly French- Catholic, I grew up in Irish and Italian-Catholic parishes and I don't feel as comfortable because churches are as steel said MOSTLY NOT INCLUSIVE. One of the visiting pastors at Wright's church who is now a member is a WHITE WOMAN and loves the church, she said it feels very inclusive. African Americans have their culture being assimilated more than any other race in this country, I think it's important for them to celebrate their heritage that was brutally ripped away from them. Wright has also never said either of those things so thanks.
I support Obama for several good reasons. You seem to support him because you're an idiot who was duped by his "change" platform.
"several" good reasons, these strawmans are ridiculous man. You don't know me, this is your first post, and if you had lurked for a while you'd know we've debated policy here many times. I can be considered a little GUNG HO OBAMA, but don't you dare call me uninformed.
My new theory: Obama was a homeless man on the streets of Chicago begging for spare change. People heard his cries for change and started blindly following him and supporting him on his quest for change. Now he's a few steps away from being the leader of the free world. It just goes to show that anything is possible in America if you're vague enough.
Best troll 08
Also, hundreds of people say that the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the Earth. Sorry, but truth is not decided by the popular vote.
What? I've never met a person who thought this, I have however met THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS of people who think the earth is round and goes around the sun GUESS YOU LOSE GOOD DAY SIR
-
Obama is giving a speech tomorrow addressing race and Wright similar to what Romney did for his religion.
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) — Far from putting the controversial issue of race behind him, Barack Obama has decided to address the issue head on in a speech Tuesday.
"I am going to be talking not just about Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign — which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks," Obama told reporters in Monaca, Pennsylvania.
Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod characterized the speech, to be delivered in Philadelphia, as "a discussion on race and politics."
"Given the events of the last few weeks, Obama felt it was time to address the issue of race and politics directly, and what it means in our country," Axelrod said.
News of the speech comes days after the Illinois senator formally denounced controversial sermons delivered by his former minister and longtime friend, Jeremiah Wright. The racially-charged remarks came under fire after being the subject of an ABC News report last week.
-
sup bill oreilly holy shit. Could you... come up with some of your own ideas that don't sound like lines ripped from fox news?
Did you not read my post, moron? I said I supported Obama. I have good reasons for doing so. However, I was not attacking Obama. I was attacking his racist crackpot church.
it's called being nice? have you seriously never heard someone say "sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree"?
I have. And they're all equally retarded. Unmeant pleasantries are hollow and those who spout them are vacuous and unthinking. I'm not sorry that I disagree with you and you aren't either. Cut the bullshit.
this is far from exclusive to Senator Obama. every presidential candidacy has run on phrases and buzzwords. none of them are hiding; it's just how they sell it. the only people who believe that Senator Obama's platform is hollow and just buzzwords are those who have done no research and fallen into the belief system of the right wing pundits.
Actually, again, you people didn't read my post. I'm not a right-winger. I'm a gay Atheist, if you must know. That's about as socially "left" as one gets. I support Obama. His pastor is a crazed lunatic.
The buzzword issue is a bit more difficult to clarify. There are two target audiences for each candidate: Those who vote based on image and hype and those who have an I.Q. greater than that of the average mentally retarded gerbil. Sadly, most of America falls into the former category and waves around signs with the vague mantras scrawled all over them. "We want change!" Yeah, well, death is a change. These hopeful-sounding gems of talking-without-saying-anything are duping the public to follow Obama under false pretences. They think he's something vibrant and new; the last remaining hope for America. Bullshit. Apart from his half-blackness he's your average run-of-the-mill politician. He's got a smooth voice and pleasing mocha-coloured skin, but there's nothing else new about Obama. His campaign won't change anything. He's not a Superpresident: faster than a hijacked 747, more powerful than an entire Congress, able to leap over any Supreme Court legislation in a single bound. He will only be the next useless figurehead of American government. As Bush has proved, there is no real power in the office of the President unless a war is declared. All remaining candidates have vowed to end the war (McCain too, you moronic NPR worshippers, just in a slower method than the immediate withdrawal of either Obama or Clinton) and whatever candidate is elected will go back to the mediocrity of the Presidency. None of our candidates are candidates of change. It takes more hard work to change this nation than any one President can do.
you're also wrong in assuming that what Truth meant by true christian was some sort of dogmatic dismissal of other religions. his point was that Obama is not a Christian for political reasons but for personal reasons. that's what true meant in this sense, and I can't help but feel you purposefully set up a strawman about "True Christians" to ignore this.
I know it's not a dogmatic dismissal of other religions. It's a dogmatic dismissal of people of the same religion who believe differently and are therefore not considered Christian by the name-caller. My remarks were a reasoned dismissal of the person who was using the putrid phrase. And unless I'm debating a scarecrow on this forum, there's no straw here.
also you're confusing Farrakhan with Wright, I believe. there was nothing about racism. pride in one's culture, one's OPPRESSED CULTURE, is not racism. I also see nothing about blacks being a new chosen people in the article.
I never mentioned the article. I was purely focussing on the reply given to Wil by the fatuously named "The Truth." Also, I'm not confusing anyone. The fact that they are both racists who see blacks as the dominate race in some sort of spiritualist manner and the fact that I pointed out that it applies to them both may make you think I'm confused, but, as it turns out, you're the one who is confused. The truth is that we are much more closely related than any one of us thought before ten years ago. New studies in evolutionary biology and genetics have shown just how close the individual races are. In fact, we're so close that the word race almost means nothing. Blacks are not superior. White are not either. We are all equal. Is that such a hard concept for these old, loud black men to grasp? They think that they must combat white racism by being racist back. It's sheer ignorance.
And don't give me this "oppressed culture" bullshit. I'm a gay Atheist of Jewish decent living in the American South. A black man living in Chicago is not oppressed. I can fucking show you "oppressed."
have you been to a church ever? religion is VERY divided on racial lines. churches are NOT inclusive. hell by the very nature of religion requiring membership, they aren't inclusive.
I was raised in a fairly moderate Southern Baptist congregation. We had quite a few black families who came to our church and loved it there. I still visit churches at least twice a month. I rarely see all-white churches anymore. I see quite a few all-black churches. Also, churches that happen to have an all-white congregation, in my experience, never talk about how good it is to be white or about how Jesus is coming back and he's going to take the white people first. I have heard in several all-black churches that I have visited that it's "so good" to be black and that Jesus is going to "take the brothers and the sisters of Africa first," and I assume that this would be sufficient repayment for the exclusively Christian trafficking of slaves across the Atlantic in previous centuries. The Christian religion in America has died down from most of its fervour. Most American Christians are moderates and would have a black man to their dinner table just as soon as they would have a white man there. However, in the rest of the world, I will agree with you. Religion as a whole is very divisive and racist. One more good reason to abandon your silly faiths. :-)
it's also confusing that you would say Truth is an idiot based on one post, unless you've been lurking, and I say that as the first person to call Truth on his OBAMAMANIA or whatever.
Why can I not base my assumption that "The Truth" is an idiot because of one very idiotic post? Are we to say that Osama wasn't an asshole because he bombed us for one day or that Hitler wasn't a douchebag because he only perpetuated one holocaust? An idiotic post, an unapologetically idiotic post, is a good sign that a person is an idiot. Until I see otherwise, he's an idiot.
Whoa whoa whoa, excuse me for having some tact in my political discussions (something i've been trying to improve upon)
Ahhh, The Truth comes back to defend himself! Shall he prove himself a worthy adversary or am I wasting my time. I guess we'll soon find out.
Steel is correct, you are referring to Louis Farrakhan, you are confusing the two because Wright said that Farrakhan was a great black leader, which is being taken out of context constantly by the mainstream media. I think that Farrakhan has done innumerable things for the black community and should be praised for them, does that mean that I am a muslim and hate whites? As Steel said this entire post is just one ridiculous strawman after another, you know what i meant about "true christian", I was defending the fact that Obama is religious for any reason other than to dissuade people that he is a "closet atheist" or "closet muslim". Obama's pastor has never said any of these things to my knowledge, and if you know more than me than you must have dug deeper than the information that is readily available.
He's not right, as I previously discussed. How can you claim that he's right about my intentions as if it were a matter of fact? Oh... right... arrogance. I'm not confusing the two. I know very well who "Rev." Wright and Louis Ferrakhan are as I have been following both of their careers for years. They are both racist nutcases. The information is not only readily available, but it's staring you in the face. Wright follows what is called Black Liberation Theology, which is, in essence, the belief that black Christians are the chosen people of the Bible and, occasionally, that Jesus was black. I don't know if Wright ever mentioned Jesus as a black man, so I won't say anything on the issue. However, the idea that black Christians are the new chosen people is essential to the Black Liberation Theology that Wright endorses so adamantly.
Also, I don't believe any of the other candidates are anything but Christian. I assume you're making a jab at Heartless Hillary with this remark, but I think she's too unfeeling to be a Humanist, don't you? I'm certain she's a Christian, even though you may not want to count her among your ranks.
Have you ever actually been to a church? The parish I attend is mostly French- Catholic, I grew up in Irish and Italian-Catholic parishes and I don't feel as comfortable because churches are as steel said MOSTLY NOT INCLUSIVE. One of the visiting pastors at Wright's church who is now a member is a WHITE WOMAN and loves the church, she said it feels very inclusive. African Americans have their culture being assimilated more than any other race in this country, I think it's important for them to celebrate their heritage that was brutally ripped away from them. Wright has also never said either of those things so thanks.
"several" good reasons, these strawmans are ridiculous man. You don't know me, this is your first post, and if you had lurked for a while you'd know we've debated policy here many times. I can be considered a little GUNG HO OBAMA, but don't you dare call me uninformed.
I'm sorry that you seem to have picked an asshole of a church to belong to, but the general message of Christianity is unity, is it not? Aren't Christians supposed to "love their neighbours as their selves," or some such nonsense? Again, find me a church that says that only whites go to Heaven. (If it's in Alabama, I won't count it. I'm looking for modern-era churches and Alabama is stuck in a time machine set to 1954.) This chosen race mentality is only prevalent in black American churches. There are no churches that have achieved the mega-church status Wright's church has built for itself who exclude black worshippers from their congregation. Christian churches are too business-minded today to care too much about race. A black man's money is just as good as a white man's money. Also, here's the pastoral staff list. http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm Find the white woman for me, please. I looked and couldn't see her. Is she wearing blackface make-up?
I would consider anyone who is gung-ho about anything an idiot, so don't think you're special. Anyone who is gung-ho about a person or an organisation or a policy is so star-struck and blinded by their idol that they can't see the flaws in them and talk rationally. A true sceptical person would critique every ounce of a person or organisation before becoming a follower. That's what I did, and after much reflection, I support Obama. However, the friend of a friend is not necessarily my friend. You came to the right conclusion, man, but you seem to have been drawn to it too hastily and by taking the wrong bait. At least you don't support that twat Hillary. We'd have to really debate each other then.
What? I've never met a person who thought this, I have however met THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS of people who think the earth is round and goes around the sun GUESS YOU LOSE GOOD DAY SIR
It's called Biblical Astronomy. Here is is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
Well, this was fun. Was it a waste of my time? Probably. Are you a worthy adversary? Probably not. I'd love to be proven wrong though. If I'm proven wrong about you, I make a new friend. If I'm proven wrong about "Rev." Wright, the world isn't as fucked as I thought it was. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in both cases, however, the evidence sides with me.
-
No offense to you personally, reedbraden, but you really either need to read the others' words more carefully or you need to stop using so many straw men.
I think that some of the things you're saying are coming off as a bit naive. For example, you complain about there being two audiences: one that does understand something about politics, and one that does not.
There are two target audiences for each candidate: Those who vote based on image and hype and those who have an I.Q. greater than that of the average mentally retarded gerbil.
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
However, every candidate must appeal to both groups. You cannot run if you don't have a solid plan to back up your presidency, but you also cannot be a serious contender if you have no way to sell your message.
You complain that "most of America falls into the former category". But did you ever stop to think that perhaps it's the same everywhere else in the world?
That's why the Obama campaign uses the words such as "change" and "hope" in nicely typeset Gotham Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_%28typeface%29): because they are there to entice the public, to get them to be interested in exactly what sort of "change" his campaign is willing to bring about. It invites the people to take a peek inside of their camp to see whether they like what they're shown. Every candidate and political party does this, regardless of where they are or to which audience they preach.
I have. And they're all equally retarded. Unmeant pleasantries are hollow and those who spout them are vacuous and unthinking. I'm not sorry that I disagree with you and you aren't either. Cut the bullshit.
You should really adjust your attitude if you're going to post here. I personally don't care too much about the way the message is presented, but if you consider proper conduct to be "unmeant pleasantries" by those who are "vacuous and unthinking", I doubt many people will take you very seriously.
-
Did you not read my post, moron? I said I supported Obama. I have good reasons for doing so. However, I was not attacking Obama. I was attacking his racist crackpot church.
great post more insults you're a gggggreat guy
I have. And they're all equally retarded. Unmeant pleasantries are hollow and those who spout them are vacuous and unthinking. I'm not sorry that I disagree with you and you aren't either. Cut the bullshit.
It's called "arguing with someone like an adult". Maybe you have not had a chance to do this, but when you don't show someone at least a modicum of respect how can you hope to persuade them?
Actually, again, you people didn't read my post. I'm not a right-winger. I'm a gay Atheist, if you must know. That's about as socially "left" as one gets. I support Obama. His pastor is a crazed lunatic.
IF YOU MUST KNOW I AM A MINORITY TOO NOT RACIST
The buzzword issue is a bit more difficult to clarify. There are two target audiences for each candidate: Those who vote based on image and hype and those who have an I.Q. greater than that of the average mentally retarded gerbil. Sadly, most of America falls into the former category and waves around signs with the vague mantras scrawled all over them. "We want change!" Yeah, well, death is a change. These hopeful-sounding gems of talking-without-saying-anything are duping the public to follow Obama under false pretences. They think he's something vibrant and new; the last remaining hope for America. Bullshit. Apart from his half-blackness he's your average run-of-the-mill politician. He's got a smooth voice and pleasing mocha-coloured skin, but there's nothing else new about Obama. His campaign won't change anything. He's not a Superpresident: faster than a hijacked 747, more powerful than an entire Congress, able to leap over any Supreme Court legislation in a single bound. He will only be the next useless figurehead of American government. As Bush has proved, there is no real power in the office of the President unless a war is declared. All remaining candidates have vowed to end the war (McCain too, you moronic NPR worshippers, just in a slower method than the immediate withdrawal of either Obama or Clinton) and whatever candidate is elected will go back to the mediocrity of the Presidency. None of our candidates are candidates of change. It takes more hard work to change this nation than any one President can do.
This WALL OF TEXT is pretty hilarious in that your argument is ignoring anything steel said earlier. Just because HOPE and CHANGE are Obama campaign buzzwords does not mean he runs on some empty platform. I'm not sure if you've ever followed politics but EVERY POLITICIAN I CAN REMEMBER EVER has rallied their troops with ridiculous buzzwords it's not like it is only a part of the Obama campaign.
I know it's not a dogmatic dismissal of other religions. It's a dogmatic dismissal of people of the same religion who believe differently and are therefore not considered Christian by the name-caller. My remarks were a reasoned dismissal of the person who was using the putrid phrase. And unless I'm debating a scarecrow on this forum, there's no straw here.
what the fuck are you talking about i'm trying to make an argument that obama isn't simply PRETENDING TO BE A CHRISTIAN. but whatever LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU I'M FUCKING EDGY.
I never mentioned the article. I was purely focussing on the reply given to Wil by the fatuously named "The Truth." Also, I'm not confusing anyone. The fact that they are both racists who see blacks as the dominate race in some sort of spiritualist manner and the fact that I pointed out that it applies to them both may make you think I'm confused, but, as it turns out, you're the one who is confused. The truth is that we are much more closely related than any one of us thought before ten years ago. New studies in evolutionary biology and genetics have shown just how close the individual races are. In fact, we're so close that the word race almost means nothing. Blacks are not superior. White are not either. We are all equal. Is that such a hard concept for these old, loud black men to grasp? They think that they must combat white racism by being racist back. It's sheer ignorance.
not racist
And don't give me this "oppressed culture" bullshit. I'm a gay Atheist of Jewish decent living in the American South. A black man living in Chicago is not oppressed. I can fucking show you "oppressed."
not racist
I was raised in a fairly moderate Southern Baptist congregation. We had quite a few black families who came to our church and loved it there. I still visit churches at least twice a month. I rarely see all-white churches anymore. I see quite a few all-black churches. Also, churches that happen to have an all-white congregation, in my experience, never talk about how good it is to be white or about how Jesus is coming back and he's going to take the white people first. I have heard in several all-black churches that I have visited that it's "so good" to be black and that Jesus is going to "take the brothers and the sisters of Africa first," and I assume that this would be sufficient repayment for the exclusively Christian trafficking of slaves across the Atlantic in previous centuries. The Christian religion in America has died down from most of its fervour. Most American Christians are moderates and would have a black man to their dinner table just as soon as they would have a white man there. However, in the rest of the world, I will agree with you. Religion as a whole is very divisive and racist. One more good reason to abandon your silly faiths. :-)
this is patently untrue and you're assuming that your experience is becoming of the entire nation, which it's not.
Why can I not base my assumption that "The Truth" is an idiot because of one very idiotic post? Are we to say that Osama wasn't an asshole because he bombed us for one day or that Hitler wasn't a douchebag because he only perpetuated one holocaust? An idiotic post, an unapologetically idiotic post, is a good sign that a person is an idiot. Until I see otherwise, he's an idiot.
invoking hitler is such a great way to debate
Ahhh, The Truth comes back to defend himself! Shall he prove himself a worthy adversary or am I wasting my time. I guess we'll soon find out.
i hope.... i am worthy sir....
He's not right, as I previously discussed. How can you claim that he's right about my intentions as if it were a matter of fact? Oh... right... arrogance. I'm not confusing the two. I know very well who "Rev." Wright and Louis Ferrakhan are as I have been following both of their careers for years. They are both racist nutcases. The information is not only readily available, but it's staring you in the face. Wright follows what is called Black Liberation Theology, which is, in essence, the belief that black Christians are the chosen people of the Bible and, occasionally, that Jesus was black. I don't know if Wright ever mentioned Jesus as a black man, so I won't say anything on the issue. However, the idea that black Christians are the new chosen people is essential to the Black Liberation Theology that Wright endorses so adamantly.
please link me to any proof of Wright saying that the black race is the chosen race, no really do it. itt you are just cherrypicking any idiotic quotes wright has made in his life to say LOOK THIS TRUTH GUY THINKS THIS IS RIGHT HU HU when I was clearly referring to his opinion that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, and have basically been the worst country in the world since World War 2.
Also, I don't believe any of the other candidates are anything but Christian. I assume you're making a jab at Heartless Hillary with this remark, but I think she's too unfeeling to be a Humanist, don't you? I'm certain she's a Christian, even though you may not want to count her among your ranks.
i don't even know what you're talking about I never spoke about any other candidate's religion and anyone in the thread who did was simply either pointing out that they all go to churches filled with people of their race, or that some of them are connected to some pretty horrible WHITE ministers
I'm sorry that you seem to have picked an asshole of a church to belong to, but the general message of Christianity is unity, is it not? Aren't Christians supposed to "love their neighbours as their selves," or some such nonsense? Again, find me a church that says that only whites go to Heaven. (If it's in Alabama, I won't count it. I'm looking for modern-era churches and Alabama is stuck in a time machine set to 1954.) This chosen race mentality is only prevalent in black American churches. There are no churches that have achieved the mega-church status Wright's church has built for itself who exclude black worshippers from their congregation. Christian churches are too business-minded today to care too much about race. A black man's money is just as good as a white man's money. Also, here's the pastoral staff list. http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm Find the white woman for me, please. I looked and couldn't see her. Is she wearing blackface make-up?
I said she was a visiting pastor who became a member of the church guy, also I'm now pretty sure you've actually never been to a church or even to like a fucking library in your life because if you honestly think that WELL IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE AND ISN'T then i don't even know. You mean to tell me ...... races tend to congregate together and integration has been ridiculously difficult in this country..... ye gods....
also i've never seen a church in my life that turn people away because of the color of their skin, however church ideology and unspoken policies usually do jesus christ this is like talking to someone who has lived their entire life underground/ roleplays a level 14 elven ranger
I would consider anyone who is gung-ho about anything an idiot, so don't think you're special. Anyone who is gung-ho about a person or an organisation or a policy is so star-struck and blinded by their idol that they can't see the flaws in them and talk rationally. A true sceptical person would critique every ounce of a person or organisation before becoming a follower. That's what I did, and after much reflection, I support Obama. However, the friend of a friend is not necessarily my friend. You came to the right conclusion, man, but you seem to have been drawn to it too hastily and by taking the wrong bait. At least you don't support that twat Hillary. We'd have to really debate each other then.
i'm not sure where you got the idea that i didn't critique my politician before choosing him, but great keep up with.... wait what?
.............. oohhhhh right it's called.... arrogance heh...... *tosses back long lock of black hair* i know all about you "the truth" (HOW IRONIC)
It's called Biblical Astronomy. Here is is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
i guess i still don't see how you talking about something that less than 1% of the population believes helps your argument about "TRUTH IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR VOTE", because i don't know, maybe if we took a vote and asked people "hey is the earth flat y/no ps do you want some chups" i am sure that the earth being round would win like 98-2% and chups would be in high demand.
Well, this was fun. Was it a waste of my time? Probably. Are you a worthy adversary? Probably not. I'd love to be proven wrong though. If I'm proven wrong about you, I make a new friend. If I'm proven wrong about "Rev." Wright, the world isn't as fucked as I thought it was. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in both cases, however, the evidence sides with me.
sorry i cannot make friends with a gay
-
There are quite a number of points in your post I could take issue with and debate to death or perhaps get angry at your "straw man"-ing (god that word has been mentioned too many times in this topic) but I won't because it probably isn't worth it to argue some of what you have said. I will, however, take up arms on one statement you made, which does, unfortunately, prove your lack of information on political history and knowledge of the system.
He will only be the next useless figurehead of American government. As Bush has proved, there is no real power in the office of the President unless a war is declared.
Oops. Of all the things you said, this is the only one I feel that I must talk about.
The constitution provides for a very ambiguous description of presidential powers. I will start this by hoping that you have, indeed, read the constitution or at least the section I am talking about so that I do not have to explain every word of it or something. Anyway, what this means is that the powers of the president are not defined clearly and set in stone and there is no clear wording as to what, exactly, his job entails. Many political thinkers take this to mean one of two things: either that the presidnt is supposed to have very little power, which is unlikely due to the context under which the constitution was written where there were many proponents of a "king" of America; or two, that the president's powers, as well as those of the congress, should be redefined on a case by case and job holder by job holder basis. That is the generally accepted analysis since, in fact, that is the way things work.
The president has two things going for him, essentially: executive orders and executive privilege. When you compare this to congress, whose ability is oversight and the ability to set legislation (with presidential approval, by the way) it might appear that the president gets the short end of the stick here. This is not the case. The executive branch is responsible for executing the laws. Woah there. But of course the president has to do with the congress tells him, right? Nope. Executive orders are, in the most basic sense, additions to laws added by the president. In this situation the president can add pretty much whatever he (or possibly she) wants. Take note that the president can even add "this is great but I am going to ignore enforcing this law". Which means that if the president is of a certain mind, he or she can rule against the congress. Executive orders can be expanded depending on the tact and personality of a president to do just about anything even to the extent of rounding up a bunch of people of the same race and putting them in concentration camps. This has happened. Executive orders can be used to pass decrees of authority much in the way a king rules by his own power in a monarchy.
But all this is silly, right, because congress has the ability to override executive orders by passing a new law that negates those orders, right? Note what I said. Congress must pass a new law to override an individual executive order. That means that a bill must be proposed and not die on the floor on 18 different occasions and must, of course, have majority to pass. On which event a president can veto it, which means 2/3 of the congress must agree to overturn the veto. When was the last time one party had a 2/3 majority? But wait, a law is subject to executive orders anyway, right? This means that a president can simply attach an executive order to the law removing his previous executive order saying that he will just ignore it. That's silly, right? Too bad it has already happened. Now then, I will grant that due to a supreme court ruling, the president cannot directly say that he will not enforce a law, but there are many other ways for him or her to safely ignore something. The other issue is that the congress holds the power of the checkbook, which is a very powerful tool of negotiation. The point still stands that executive orders exist.
But the president is just a figurehead and he has no power, right? No power to uh, say...pull us out of a depression? No power to uh...potentially nationalize an industry? No power to uh...take us to the moon? All these have happened as a result of executive orders, and none of them happened because "war was declared".
Now then, the second part is executive privilege, which means that, essentially, a president has a harder time being called into account for his actions. Why? Because he can withhold evidence. Any piece of paperwork (or testimony, I believe) under the jurisdiction of the executive branch can be refused admittance as evidence in court or refused revelation to the people based on the discretion of the president. What does this really mean?
MISTER PRESIDENT I SUSPECT YOU OF APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO BUILD A MANSION PLEASE SHOW US THE PAPERWORK THAT ACCOUNTS FOR LAST YEARS BUDGET DISTRIBUTION
No.
SHIT, THERE GOES OUR CASE.
I dunno what all this tells you. It probably strengthens your angst at people not being informed voters, but I should hope it also tells you that who we elect president is not just some charade we go through for two years. The disposition and charisma of a president has a massive impact on how the country will be for four to eight years. That is up to a tenth of a human life, not a short period. So your accusations that Obama is JUST a charismatic guy and otherwise a normal politician is precisely the point. He is charismatic and his disposition is for change. This is quite a powerful combination considering it is exactly what a president needs to do pretty much anything he wants on his own initiative.
-
I have. And they're all equally retarded. Unmeant pleasantries are hollow and those who spout them are vacuous and unthinking. I'm not sorry that I disagree with you and you aren't either. Cut the bullshit.
you know it's not like I said I DID that stuff; someone quoted it later and said HAHAHA NO WAY because I am well known for disliking that stuff. I said TRUTH might have actually been saying "oh come on dude, I know you mean well but I disagree!" why can't you accept that? why is it hollow? I have disagreed with people in real life and apologized for interrupting and then inserting my opinion.
Actually, again, you people didn't read my post. I'm not a right-winger. I'm a gay Atheist, if you must know. That's about as socially "left" as one gets. I support Obama. His pastor is a crazed lunatic.
The buzzword issue is a bit more difficult to clarify. There are two target audiences for each candidate: Those who vote based on image and hype and those who have an I.Q. greater than that of the average mentally retarded gerbil. Sadly, most of America falls into the former category and waves around signs with the vague mantras scrawled all over them. "We want change!" Yeah, well, death is a change. These hopeful-sounding gems of talking-without-saying-anything are duping the public to follow Obama under false pretences. They think he's something vibrant and new; the last remaining hope for America. Bullshit. Apart from his half-blackness he's your average run-of-the-mill politician. He's got a smooth voice and pleasing mocha-coloured skin, but there's nothing else new about Obama. His campaign won't change anything. He's not a Superpresident: faster than a hijacked 747, more powerful than an entire Congress, able to leap over any Supreme Court legislation in a single bound. He will only be the next useless figurehead of American government. As Bush has proved, there is no real power in the office of the President unless a war is declared. All remaining candidates have vowed to end the war (McCain too, you moronic NPR worshippers, just in a slower method than the immediate withdrawal of either Obama or Clinton) and whatever candidate is elected will go back to the mediocrity of the Presidency. None of our candidates are candidates of change. It takes more hard work to change this nation than any one President can do.
I never said you were a right winger, I said you were falling into propaganda. this idea that everyone who supports Obama only for "hollow images" is a FALSE IDEA. no one here has been talking about hope and change, you just used this topic as a platform for you to diatribe against people who are flash in the pan politics.
no one has denied there are hollow advocates of Obama. I've argued it many many times. the problem is you don't seem to realize that the people HERE, on THIS FORUM, are not those people. you just want to rant against Truth because he's got an Obama avatar and quote, which is pretty weak, but far from indicative of unintelligent advocacy.
trust me, I've called Truth on this stuff, but I know the majority of Obama advocates on this forum are not falling into bandwagonning. Truth gets a little crazy a lot but he's not ignorant on the issues at all, and it's very unfair of you to paint him with that brush!
I know it's not a dogmatic dismissal of other religions. It's a dogmatic dismissal of people of the same religion who believe differently and are therefore not considered Christian by the name-caller. My remarks were a reasoned dismissal of the person who was using the putrid phrase. And unless I'm debating a scarecrow on this forum, there's no straw here.
you're ignoring me again! I accidentally wrote OTHER RELIGIONS, but it's clear what Truth meant. he meant someone who ACTUALLY IS CHRISTIAN, as opposed to someone who acts like it for political reasons. Richard Nixon is an example of someone who pretended to be a moral and religious man and wasn't. Truth was making the case that Obama is actually devout. you can disagree with that, but he was NOT drawing a line between his version of "real" and "false" Christians, he was using the one given in the Bible and by every Christian church, that of fake devotees versus those who truly believe. he was NOT saying Obama was a "real" Christian because idk he likes the death penalty, he was saying it because he believes Obama has sufficiently described his commitment to his faith!
I never mentioned the article. I was purely focussing on the reply given to Wil by the fatuously named "The Truth." Also, I'm not confusing anyone. The fact that they are both racists who see blacks as the dominate race in some sort of spiritualist manner and the fact that I pointed out that it applies to them both may make you think I'm confused, but, as it turns out, you're the one who is confused. The truth is that we are much more closely related than any one of us thought before ten years ago. New studies in evolutionary biology and genetics have shown just how close the individual races are. In fact, we're so close that the word race almost means nothing. Blacks are not superior. White are not either. We are all equal. Is that such a hard concept for these old, loud black men to grasp? They think that they must combat white racism by being racist back. It's sheer ignorance.
And don't give me this "oppressed culture" bullshit. I'm a gay Atheist of Jewish decent living in the American South. A black man living in Chicago is not oppressed. I can fucking show you "oppressed."
did you just make something up? nowhere in that article, and you've provided none since, says this preacher says anything like what you're arguing. also the fact that some preachers speak of their people in a good way is because no one else ever does. you seem to think it's racism for them to say the black people are great; they do this not on racial lines but on cultural ones, because being black in this country is the same as living as a second class citizen.
more disturbing is the last line, where you attempt to say a gay athiest ex jew is somehow more oppressed than a black man. aside from the fact that as a non-practicing Jew there should be nothing identifying you of "Jewish descent" other than DO YOU HAVE A BIG NOSE/CURLY HAIR/JEWFRO, and aside from the fact that nothing remotely as bad as slavery has happened to atheists ever, you're ignoring something incredibly obvious; as horrible as it is and as terrible as it is that people have to make this choice, you CAN HIDE IT. unless you walk around with a big pink dreidel screaming about God's non-existence, no one who runs into you on the street will think "oh my god it's a gay athiest of jewish descent!" no one can persecute you solely by appearance. it requires you to do certain things to be recognized as such.
as opposed to being black, where people will instantly see you and regard you with fear or revulsion, where cops will follow you around if you walk into a mall, where cabs don't stop for you in the rain, based on your appearance that you can never ever change. did you know that if 8% of a neighborhood becomes black, a process called White Flight occurs, where the white neighbors leave and flee en masse because they believe they aren't welcome. 8%. there are also sundown towns, gerrymandering, all sorts of amazing shit that you're ignoring because...Chicago? there are no racists in Chicago? no race crime? what about Trapped in the Closet.....
ps: I'm an Indian athiest of Hindu descent living in the American South. do I win the Prejudice Olympics?
*one eyed tranny black ex-nun living in Australia walks in*
I was raised in a fairly moderate Southern Baptist congregation. We had quite a few black families who came to our church and loved it there. I still visit churches at least twice a month. I rarely see all-white churches anymore. I see quite a few all-black churches. Also, churches that happen to have an all-white congregation, in my experience, never talk about how good it is to be white or about how Jesus is coming back and he's going to take the white people first. I have heard in several all-black churches that I have visited that it's "so good" to be black and that Jesus is going to "take the brothers and the sisters of Africa first," and I assume that this would be sufficient repayment for the exclusively Christian trafficking of slaves across the Atlantic in previous centuries. The Christian religion in America has died down from most of its fervour. Most American Christians are moderates and would have a black man to their dinner table just as soon as they would have a white man there. However, in the rest of the world, I will agree with you. Religion as a whole is very divisive and racist. One more good reason to abandon your silly faiths. :-)
you've HEARD, right. you don't know that Obama's church is like that at all. you just assumed a church in a predominantly black neighborhood was racist.
I've been to many all-black churches, and you're severely mistaken if you think going back to Africa is a serious option expressed by many churches. you also are gravely mistaken if you think that most Christians would be okay with having a black man eat dinner with them. most would not be okay with ME having dinner with them let alone a black man. I've been to dinners where people will try to make Indian food as if I have to be acclimated despite living in this country for years. I've never had a white girlfriend take me home to see her parents, because they are afraid their parents will give them so much shit for it (I did date an Indian girl once, so I had to add that disclaimer MY GIRLFRIENDS). my friend was dating an Asian girl, so his mom brought over the Asian neighbors she never talked to just so the girl would have someone of "her own". you don't seem to understand how racism works; it's not all about LYNCHING and LIGHTING CROSSES ON FIRE; they express their discomfort by purposefully putting the good silver away and acting offended when you hold hands with their daughter. many Christians, athiests, whatever, are racist. I don't know why you think your one church with a few black families is suddenly the norm. do you think all blacks going to black churches just SEETHE AGAINST WHITEY?
Why can I not base my assumption that "The Truth" is an idiot because of one very idiotic post? Are we to say that Osama wasn't an asshole because he bombed us for one day or that Hitler wasn't a douchebag because he only perpetuated one holocaust? An idiotic post, an unapologetically idiotic post, is a good sign that a person is an idiot. Until I see otherwise, he's an idiot.
you're kidding. the difference between the systematic killing of thousands and a post on a forum is incredibly large. Truth is a lot of things, including a little ridiculously zealous, but you can't say that post was incredibly stupid, considering you still haven't offered any conclusive evidence of Obama's church being racist.
you've just made two very bad posts in this topic and they are your only ones, but I never called you an idiotic zealot!
-
Jeff, you seem rather knowledgeable about the constitution and the way things work so I will direct my question towards you. Isn't it also true that the president can command the destruction of any city in the world -- on a whim? Is this within his power?
-
Jeff, you seem rather knowledgeable about the constitution and the way things work so I will direct my question towards you. Isn't it also true that the president can command the destruction of any city in the world -- on a whim? Is this within his power?
There are several things you can be referring to. The first is the two-man rule, which, in the case of the president, ties in with his position as Commander in Chief. The two-man rule states that in the United States military, an executive officer must have the confirmation of another officer before he or she may give the order to launch nuclear warheads. In the president's case, he needs the confirmation of another cabinet member to be able to deploy the American nuclear arsenal. So that could be one of the ways a president could, at any time and without congressional approval, destroy any city in the world on a whim (provided that whim is supported by another member of his cabinet). The second is, as I mentioned, his role as "Commander in Chief", which is not spelled out or expanded on much in the constitution. You can imply it to mean total control over any military action or you can say that this is a power checked or jointly held by the legislative and executive branches. If you interpret the constitution to mean the president has total control over military action and you take into account that the president does not have to immediately inform congress of military deployment, yes, a president could order the bombing of any city on a whim. Either way you look at it, the president DOES have that power but it is, of course, unlikely to be used in such a fashion without merit.
-
-
obama is a house nigger : (
-
Man, too many large posts. Hey reedbraden, please only reply to my post, okay?
-
Obama has such a wonderful voice!
-
Great Salon article related to pretty much everything being talked about here
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/index.html
"The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers"
John Hagee privately visits with the highest level Middle East officials in the White House and afterwards pronounces that they're in agreement. John McCain shares a stage with Hagee and lavishes him with praise, as Rudy Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. James Inhofe remains a member in good standing in the GOP Senate Caucus. The Republican Party has tied itself at the hip to a whole slew of "anti-American extremists" -- people who believe that the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks because God wants to punish us for the evil, wicked nation we've become -- and yet there is virtual silence about these associations.
-
yeah i am wondering why no one cares that many of the GOP candidates had ties to the jerry falwells and pat robertsons.
but since this wright guy is a DAMNED LIBERAL (also black), he's suddenly MORE CRAZY or something.
-
Greenwald is okay but I've never been able to forgive him for thinking Ron Paul was a good idea.
-
Quite a speech. But media coverage convieniently not talking about how he called out the networks on spinning it into "black and brown" and the "white and black votes".
I think it's these sort of speeches and him stepping up to the plate that are more clearly showing him as the one with the mojo, the man of the moment, and hillary as the eventual loser.
-
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
oh huckabee if you weren't a religious nutjob with terrible policies!
ALSO just fyi quite a few people are saying this will be the nail in Obama's coffin and the superdelegates wont want to endorse him!
-
ALSO just fyi quite a few people are saying this will be the nail in Obama's coffin and the superdelegates wont want to endorse him!
If that is true then the democratic party is worse off than I thought.
Edit:
You know what, what are the superdelegates themselves saying? All I hear is random people off the street and news commentators. Have any of the superdelegates who declared for Obama actually said YOU KNOW WHAT I AM THINKING OF SWITCHING MY VOTE TO HILLARY EVEN THOUGH SHE IS CLEARLY THE LESSER CANDIDATE? Because I think it is ridiculous.
-
well he's only leading by 140. the Republicans will try and hurt him with this, so it's predicted that some superdelegates will switch just to get a Dem in office.
most news orgs just call superdelegates, they don't tend to WRITE BLOGS or anything!
-
oh huckabee if you weren't a religious nutjob with terrible policies!
ALSO just fyi quite a few people are saying this will be the nail in Obama's coffin and the superdelegates wont want to endorse him!
wow that quote shocks me completely
i can't even believe he said that