The nation is talking greatly now and has decided that Obama, who is left of Hillary Clinton on most things important to Americans, is simply unelectable. After her victorious win in Pennsylvania, Hillary has apparently more than convinced people across the nation that she would make a better president than Obama and the nation is now agreeing with her! In fact, she is now even beating McCain! If Obama truly wants to get a Democrat as president in the Oval Office by next January, he should gracefully bow out of the race now and save the party from further struggles! This trend can only continue with Hillary winning more and more support and even the superdelegates who are now seriously looking at her!

For the story: ABC News: AP POLL: Clinton Beats McCain By Wider Margin Than Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4739626)

NO! Like I said back in January he needs to defeat Hillary to get her out of the pic and THEN concentrate on proving how unelectable Obama is.

I don't really call less than 10 percent a large victory, esp since she was 20 percent ahead in the state before the election. And in fact he is winning the race at this point and I would wonder why Hillary has not done the proper thing and steped out

and I would wonder why Hillary has not done the proper thing and steped out
Because Hillary is Hillary and she will NEVER back off anything!

I don't really call less than 10 percent a large victory, esp since she was 20 percent ahead in the state before the election. And in fact he is winning the race at this point and I would wonder why Hillary has not done the proper thing and steped out

But then why should she? The tide is now turning in her favor as more and more people realize she is the one who could actually beat McCain and they are arriving at this conclusion just in time! Did you, perchance, see the broad spectrum of groups who are now with her! That speaks volumes for what this country is looking for and now believes in. Well, Republicans did want Hillary as the Democrat nominee, looks like they're going to get their chance!

Btw, see the latest "I Told You So " posting at:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-time-obama-bow-out-race-210579.html

What's that saying, "pride comes before the fall?" Well get ready the Sky is falling! :)

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/34_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out)

Monday, April 28, 2008

"Thirty-four percent (34%) of Democrats nationwide now believe that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the White House. That's up from 32% earlier in April and 22% in late March.

As for Barack Obama, just 22% of Democrats say he should drop out. That's down from 26% earlier in April and unchanged from 22% in March. Just 1% want both candidates to drop out and 45% aren't ready for either to leave.

Nationally, Obama holds a modest but steady lead over Clinton in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll."

I don't want him out of the race . I want a Dem deadlocked convention and Recreate 68 in Denver. At this point I'm not sure he wouldn't be the easier candidate for McCain to beat .

But I think that the revelation in the LA Slimes that Obama laundered money through a law firm to hide his income (for which he did not provide any known services)while an Ill. State Senator, to avoid disclosure of the income ,is going to be the nail in his coffin. That and the revelation that Obama had a much closer association with William Ayers then he has previously disclosed . Ayers was his employer for 8 years at Chicago's Annenberg Challenge .


Obama donor received a state grant - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-killerspin27apr27,0,6789688.story)

Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money : NO QUARTER (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/)

Then again... if McCain doesn't get off those marionette strings that Obama's been pulling he won't win anyway . He sounds ridiculous with his poor handling of the NC Republican party Rev Wright ad. He went from attacking the Republican party in NC for making an attack ad about Rev Wright to attacking Obama over the issues after Obama said it was OK for him to do it Sunday . From an ethical standpoint, injecting Wright into the campaign is legitimate or it isn't. It shouldn't matter what Obama believes.
Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Citing_Obama_McCain_shifts_on_use_of_Wright.html)
Obama's response was predictable after McCain fell into his trap.
"By sinking to a level that he specifically said he'd avoid, John McCain has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign"

I don't want him out of the race . I want a Dem deadlocked convention and Recreate 68 in Denver. At this point I'm not sure he wouldn't be the easier candidate for McCain to beat .


About time someone opposing the Democrats, spoke factually concerning the hope of he Republican party. They really don't have much else to work with. As for nomination and brokerage conventions, the difference is that the Democratic primaries of '08 are facing a more serious dilemma and I hope that the DNC surely doesn't want to set our country back in time to a 1960's evolution mindset. The whole world is watching to see the outcome and we stand to be the hypocrites of democracy in their eyes.

Hey Mods,
How many more of these anti-Obama threads is this member going to start? It's getting a little annoying:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?searchid=2734912


▒

Post after post I see skygem make these pointless and ridiculous comments come clean with us skygem what is your real problem with Obama? You want someone who is winning the nomination to step down because he lost one state by 9.4 and any 7th grader can tell you that with .4 you round down so actually she won by 9 points. Just like FR chuck said he was supposed to lose it by 20 does that not say something to you. He has a commanding lead in NC. Indiana is a dead heat. Your link says Obama can beat McCain, So if he wins both NC and IN what nonsense are you going to say after that? Please tells us why you actually don't like Obama.

My opinion is you are racist and I say that because my grandparents are the most racist people I have ever met in private meaning they won't say racist things about people to strangers but they will not paint that person in a good light. And every time I read one of your post it sounds exactly like something my grandmother would say to strangers. So come clean this is America freedom of speech so let it out Skygem.

Spit,
If you check the profile he/she writes:

Experience:
I am a Born Again Christian. Also, am an ordained minister. Have received certification as a Holistic Life Coach after studies and testing. I have studied religion as well as spiritual matters and have received degrees and certificates, plus in associated areas. In addition, I have studied about the Afterlife and feel very blessed in helping others when they request it. Occupation:
To help in Jesus' name.I find that quite disturbing considering the conduct here.

In the US Obama and the Democrat nomination pretty much dominates "current events" . The fact is that there was a news story out yesterday that sky linked to . Bobby effectively countered his point with a counterpoint with a supporting link .
The Rev Wright is "current events " again because he has been all over the media in a pre- book tour and because he is not about to blow his 15 minutes of fame.
The article I linked to involving Obama's questionable hiding of income during his days a an Ill. Senator was reported by the LA Times Sunday... again "current events" .

I will remind everyone that we are pretty much prohibited from posting these on the "Politics" board because we do not end our posting with a ? . So where else should these discussions be posted ?

Tom,
It's the sheer number I guess. Perhaps it could all be merged into one thread.

Lol I understand . Maybe when Obama has his press conference today after his PBS interview ,and throws both Rev Wright and his white grandma under the bus the buzz will cool down a little .

Well personally I really don't want Obama to be the president. I hear all these things that he is saying and I get worried. Who hear thinks that he will win?

The buzz is what is created by people who don't care about the issues. The reverend and the grandma are red herrings. Apparently Obama is untouchable on the issues. Kudos to him.

I was right however . Obama did throw the Rev under the bus big time . His press conference just concluded.

Obama Addresses Ex-Pastors Media Blitz - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/obama-addresses-wrights-remarks-again/)

The buzz is what is created by people who don't care about the issues. The reverend and the grandma are red herrings. Apparently Obama is untouchable on the issues. Kudos to him.

Considering the thousands of times I've read and heard the complaints that "Bush lied," the 2006 Democratic campaign against the alleged "Republican culture of corruption," the endless congressional investigations of the Bush administration since the Dems gained the majority in Congress, and that Obama himself said he would "immediately review (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html) the information" of possible crimes in the Bush administration should he get elected - I thought character and manufactured 'buzz' were important to the left.

Tom- you flip-flop or triangulate as often as the Republicans and Democrats. You went after Obama for not dissociating himself with Rev Wright, now say he through him under the bus.

Well tell me Bobby... was he just doing what a politician does today when he flip flopped on the Right rev ? Or when was he telling the truth ? When he said that he had not heard the controverial things the rev said ;or when he said he could no longer disassociate himself from the rev than he could from the black race ? Or today when for political expediency he ripped the rev a new one ?

The whole point is that his early claim to the campaign ;that he was somehow above the fray has been totally exposed as a fiction in the last month.

Now that we know that he is not this transformational superman ;but instead just another Dem with positions not much different than his other Dem opponent ;the final issue for the Dem campaign is electability .

Well personally I really dont want Obama to be the president. I hear all these things that he is saying and I get worried. Who hear thinks that he will win?

Fair enough. I'm more worried about where the last seven and half years has led us. I actually like the fact that after the Republicans took him to task the Rev Wright issue. It gave Obama the opportunity to speak on racism in the US openly, more so than any Republican candidate or Republican President in the past century. Economically I think Ron Paul would be the best choice. However he's no longer in the campaign, so if Obama can get past the Clinton's campaign shenanigans, or from being railroaded by the DNC, he has an excellent chance of being elected President.

well tell me Bobby ....was he just doing what a politician does today when he flip flopped on the Right rev ? or when was he telling the truth ? When he said that he had not heard the controverial things the rev said ;or when he said he could no longer disassociate himself from the rev than he could from the black race ? or today when for political expediency he ripped the rev a new one ?

The whole point is that his early claim to the campaign ;that he was somehow above the fray has been totally exposed as a fiction in the last month.

Now that we know that he is not this transformational superman ;but instead just another Dem with positions not much different than his other Dem opponent ;the final issue for the Dem campaign is electability .


The point is that you didn't recognize that he originally disassociated himself from some of what Rev Wright remarks suggested, which was mostly soundbites out of context. But rather you believed as the Republicans wanted you to think that he was the alter boy at every service. Nobody on the Democratic front suggested that Obama is superman. That's mostly Republicans thinking out loud in jealous fear. The DNC message has been that either of their candidates, Obama or Clinton, are in the drivers seat against McCain. When is McCain going go on National TV and give a speech on why he's disassociating from Hagee because of his ideology concerning Jews and Catholics? I'm still waiting.

The problem is that you didn't recognize that he originally disassociated himself from some of what Rev Wright remarks suggested, which was mostly soundbites out of context. But rather you believed as the Republicans wanted you to think that he was the alter boy at every service.

I don't think that's a fair assessment, Bobby. What we have asked is how can Obama sit in a church for 20 years and claim not to have heard Wright's rants? How can he can be a member and supporter of a church and pastor for 20 years and now not only says Wright's views don't reflect what he believes, but are offensive to many Americans? It's grievously inconsistent.

Also, Obama knew Wright would be a problem for him, Wright admitted as much to the NY Times prior to this eruption. Hannity interviewed Wright (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html) in March of last year, why didn't Obama dissociate himself then?


Nobody on the Democratic front suggested that Obama is superman. That's mostly Republicans thinking out loud in jealous fear. The DNC message has been that either of their candidates, Obama or Clinton, are in the drivers seat against McCain. When is McCain going go on National TV and give a speech on why he's disassociating from Hagee because of his ideology concerning Jews and Catholics? I'm still waiting.

LOL, it ain't jealous fear, it's the media's coronation and coverage (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDI4ZjVmYzNiMTczMjFiYWEzNjE4NGI1NDRlNGU0YmQ=). All afternoon I've heard ABC Radio News correspondents elated that Obama has distanced himself from Wright - and it wasn't Republican jealous fear that sent a thrill up Christ Matthew's leg or referred to him as "the magic Negro (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story)."

I don't think that's a fair assessment, Bobby. What we have asked is how can Obama sit in a church for 20 years and claim not to have heard Wright's rants? How can he can be a member and supporter of a church and pastor for 20 years and now not only says Wright's views don't reflect what he believes, but are offensive to many Americans? It's grievously inconsistent.

Also, Obama knew Wright would be a problem for him, Wright admitted as much to the NY Times prior to this eruption. Hannity interviewed Wright (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html) in March of last year, why didn't Obama dissociate himself then?

It's very fair. Obama being on the membership role is not the same as being at every service for twenty years. I haven't forgotten it was the Republicans that blasted Obama because he agreed with Wright's teaching on "Black" theology. A theology which stood for human rights and led to civil rights. He said from the beginning that he doesn't agree with Wrights on other things, especially his lack of tact. Now that Wright refuses to be constructive in his messages, Obama on a personal level has chosen to disassociated from the pastor. Which BTW since he hasn't been around him in awhile means that Obama simply has his name removed from church membership records or continues not to show up. Wright has never been part of the Obama advisory staff. Republicans will continue to resort to negative campaigning, but only heaven knows what they'll have left to talk about around the water cooler now.



LOL, it ain't jealous fear, it's the media's coronation and coverage (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDI4ZjVmYzNiMTczMjFiYWEzNjE4NGI1NDRlNGU0YmQ=). All afternoon I've heard ABC Radio News correspondents elated that Obama has distanced himself from Wright - and it wasn't Republican jealous fear that sent a thrill up Christ Matthew's leg or referred to him as "the magic Negro (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story)."

He's the first African-American candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House and that scares the hell out of many Republicans. By the way ABC's been under Hillary Clinton's skirt for months now and FOX for the most part has been sharing McCain's wheelchair.

It's very fair. Obama being on the membership role is not the same as being at every service for twenty years.

Bobby, surely you remember that Wright was his 'mentor.' That suggests much more than occasional attendance.


I haven't forgotten it was the Republicans that blasted Obama because he agreed with Wright's teaching on "Black" theology. A theology which stood for human rights and led to civil rights. He said from the beginning that he doesn't agree with Wrights on other things, especially his lack of tact. Now that Wright refuses to be constructive in his messages, Obama on a personal level has chosen to disassociated from the pastor.

Anyone that criticizes Obama for agreeing with "black theology" in the Christian church is correct in doing so. There is no "black theology" in the Christian church any more than there is a "white theology." The idea is simply absurd.


Which BTW since he hasn't been around him in awhile means that Obama simply has his name removed from church membership records or continues not to show up. Wright has never been part of the Obama advisory staff. Republicans will continue to resort to negative campaigning, but only heaven knows what they'll have left to talk about around the water cooler now.

Bobby, Wright was indeed on Obama's "African American Religious Leadership Committee." But hey, Wright is giving us all he can to discuss around the water cooler now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus. :D


He's the first African-American candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House and that scares the hell out of many Republicans. By the way ABC's been under Hillary Clinton's skirt for months now and FOX for the most part has been sharing McCain's wheelchair.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and we've testified to the opposite many times. I'm all for a black president, just not the ones the Dems have offered up so far. I don't have any guilt over slavery to deal with, I don't need my conscience soothed, so I don't fall into that trap - and that just pi$$es some people off. ;)

Bobby, surely you remember that Wright was his 'mentor.' That suggests much more than occasional attendance.


Obama said Wright is not the same person today that he met twenty years ago. Surely you didn't think they were attached at the hip. I have rabbis that I consider as mentors that I haven't seen awhile. They may have changed. I don't always attend the same shul and often I complete shabbos at home.





Anyone that criticizes Obama for agreeing with "black theology" in the Christian church is correct in doing so. There is no "black theology" in the Christian church any more than there is a "white theology." The idea is simply absurd.

Steve, you've got to be kidding me. It's hard for me to believe you don't know where Black theology started. Generations back when slavery was pressed upon the Blacks they questioned their White proclaimed "Christian" owners as to why they were treated differently in society. Often the only place they had to speak on this issue was at their segregated Church services and out of that grew human right and civil right issues in he 1960's and even now. Wow!


Bobby, Wright was indeed on Obama's "African American Religious Leadership Committee." But hey, Wright is giving us all he can to discuss around the water cooler now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus. :D

Past tense "was" and that's been awhile back since being named to any committee. You have it wrong again. Wright threw Obama under the bus. The retired Wright seemed to had thought that he was running for presidency. The only fault I have with Obama is that he didn't put Wright in his place sooner.




Wrong, wrong, wrong and we've testified to the opposite many times. I'm all for a black president, just not the ones the Dems have offered up so far. I don't have any guilt over slavery to deal with, I don't need my conscience soothed, so I don't fall into that trap - and that just pi$$es some people off. ;)


Name one black president then?? And don't say Bill Clinton, he just thought he was African-American. :)

Obama said Wright is not the same person today that he met twenty years ago. Surely you didn't think they were attached at the hip. I have rabbis that I consider as mentors that I haven't seen awhile. They may have changed. I don't always attend the same shul and often I complete shabbos at home.

Bobby, tell me you aren't really buying that. From The Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print) in February, 2007:


The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SH*T!"

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell's nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and "felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams."

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there.

I think they were attached at the hip.


Steve, you've got to be kidding me. It's hard for me to believe you don't know where Black theology started. Generations back when slavery was pressed upon the Blacks they questioned their White proclaimed "Christian" owners as to why they were treated differently in society. Often the only place they had to speak on this issue was at their segregated Church services and out of that grew human right and civil right issues in he 1960's and even now. Wow!

I knew that would get you going but I've already explained it before. The point is simple, there is not one "Christian" theology for blacks and one "Christian" theology for whites, there is one Christ and He established one church. It ain't like I don't know there is a "black theology" or how, when and why it started - it's just as wrong as any any "white theology" that justified enslaving blacks. Here's an example from one of Wright's inspirations, James Cone:


"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."

Sorry, but that isn't Christian theology, it's racist and has no place in the church - regardless of what happened in the past.


Past tense "was" and that's been awhile back since being named to any committee. You have it wrong again. Wright threw Obama under the bus. The retired Wright seemed to had thought that he was running for presidency. The only fault I have with Obama is that he didn't put Wright in his place sooner.

I think I said "now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus."


Name one black president then?? And don't say Bill Clinton, he just thought he was African-American. :)

I can't name one if there hasn't been one, but I do support the idea which is what I said. I just refuse to vote for anyone as liberal as Obama or any black with such an "Afrocentric" influence. I'm ready to get past the color of a person's skin, aren't you?

Bobby, tell me you aren't really buying that. From The Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print) in February, 2007:?

1. I don't think that can be said of today's stats for black men in a traditional accepted White college vs those blacks in prison. But in context of the 1960's, a time directly after segregation, I'm not surprised if it's true.

2. Racism was part of the country in it's infancy stage and although via the proclamation of emancipation and civil rights of the 1960's that has brought people defined as African-American to a standard with the rest of the country, it's still exists on lower levels.


I think they were attached at the hip.

You have an opinion, not a fact. Even the parishioners (or deacons, I forget what they call themselves) of their Church have testified that they rarely have seen Obama in attendance and never was he in attendance with ranting of Wright's soundbites. That's already been investigated by the networks and proven fact. Obama has said his communication with Wright has been via phone conversations and few actual face to face discussions. Obama has never asked advice from Wright or his opinion concerning the politics or views of the campaign.



I knew that would get you going but I've already explained it before. The point is simple, there is not one "Christian" theology for blacks and one "Christian" theology for whites, there is one Christ and He established one church. It ain't like I don't know there is a "black theology" or how, when and why it started - it's just as wrong as any any "white theology" that justified enslaving blacks. Here's an example from one of Wright's inspirations, James Cone:? Sorry, but that isn't Christian theology, it's racist and has no place in the church - regardless of what happened in the past

That's because I recognize your side of religious history in the United States. It was made that way by the White Christians and it due to segregation. However Blacks used it for a sanctuary to discuss their treatment. The Black theology also provides the same gospel message the predominantly White Christian churches preach only with more of emphasis on human equality. I think your Christian testament would approve of that. Albeit today our government now affords people of color, human and civil rights, many of these churches that still preach Black theology are mixed with all races, including Whites. Obama and informed people (myself), comprehend the differences between Black theology, which is a fair Christian message, and the rants of Wrights on interjected opinions, such as thinking that our government introduced aids as a way to lower the Black population. Over the past years he has abused Black theology for his own extreme views.




I think I said "now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus."



Some say, he did it for political reasons before having to campaign against McCain. If so then that's a good strategy, but the fact is he did denounce Wright's rants longs ago when the media first brought the issue up. Now he has cuts ties altogether as he should had done a year ago. To use the word "seemingly," seemingly Wright thought he was going to ride Obama's bus for his own extreme agenda (gathering publicity to himself), but Obama with all the respect he could muster finally had to kick his tuchus off.




I can't name one if there hasn't been one, but I do support the idea which is what I said. I just refuse to vote for anyone as liberal as Obama or any black with such an "Afrocentric" influence. I'm ready to get past the color of a person's skin, aren't you?


OK. I was interjecting humor when I asked you to name one black president. Obliviously we never have had one, which was my point. Are you asking me not to bring up race and neglect our country's history? If it doesn't apply to a subject, than you have my promise I want speak of it. But now your remarks about not voting for a person of "Afrocentric" influence isn't very becoming. It's your opinion to vote as you wish. However, I like living in America where we have different people from interesting backgrounds, just look at my family. I would never ask someone to disregard their ethnic heritage to be mainstream Amercian-Caucasian or any other. That would be disingenuous and disrespectful.

Hey Mods,
How many more of these anti-Obama threads is this member going to start? It's getting a little annoying:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?searchid=2734912


▒

Everyone here has the right to post what ever they want as long as it stay within the allowed content for the site.

If they so upset you, why do you keep reading and responding to them?

You can just ignore them you know?

Hey Mods,
How many more of these anti-Obama threads is this member going to start? It's getting a little annoying:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?searchid=2734912


▒

Everyone here has the right to post what ever they want as long as it stays within the allowed content for the site.

If they so upset you, why do you keep reading and responding to them?

You can just ignore them you know?

You can just ignore them ya know?It's kind of hard to ignore this kind of dedication:
8181

]1. I don't think that can be said of today's stats...

2. Racism was part of the country in its infancy stage and although...

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.


You have an opinion, not a fact. Even the parishioners (or deacons, I forget what they call themselves) of their Church have testified that they rarely have seen Obama in attendance and never was he in attendance with ranting of Wright's soundbites. That's already been investigated by the networks and proven fact. Obama has said his communication with Wright has been via phone conversations and few actual face to face discussions. Obama has never asked advice from Wright or his opinion concerning the politics or views of the campaign.

Bobby, RS notes above that Obama “uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Obama said, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” And besides calling him his “mentor” he said, “he has been like family to me.” Those are facts, not opinions. If he never discussed politics with Wright why did he name him to a committee on his campaign?


That's because I recognize your side of religious history in the United States. It was made that way by the White Christians and it due to segregation. However Blacks used it for a sanctuary to discuss their treatment. The Black theology also provides the same gospel message the predominantly White Christian churches preach only with more of emphasis on human equality. I think your Christian testament would approve of that.

My point has nothing to do with recognizing “sides” of religious history or blacks using the church as” a sanctuary to discuss their treatment.” I recognize their history and don’t begrudge them using the church as such a sanctuary – but that has nothing to do with the validity of “black theology.” Wright claims, “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture, that was controlled by rich white people!” That’s factually incorrect, it’s a revisionist view created to support a racist theology that has no place in the church.


Albeit today our government now afford people of color, human and civil rights, many of these churches that still preach Black theology are mixed with all races…

I can’t help that some confused white dude buys into black theology, my church is colorblind.


OK. I was interjecting humor when I asked you to name one black president. Obliviously we never have had one, which was my point. Are you asking me not to bring up race and neglect our country's history?

Not at all, I’ve made it clear from the start of the campaign that race is not an issue for me and I’m not neglecting history - I was discussing Christian theology.


But now your remarks about not voting for a person of "Afrocentric" influence isn't very becoming. It's your opinion to vote as you wish. However, I like living in America where we have different people from interesting backgrounds, just look at my family. I would never ask someone to disregard their ethnic heritage to be mainstream Amercian-Caucasian or any other. That would be disingenuous and disrespectful.

Disregarding the first sentence, I feel exactly the same way. I would no more vote for a candidate with “Afrocentric” views than I would one with “Eurocentric” views. To do so would be an affront to everyone else…and that’s my point.

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.


Everyone? I think we should give our fellow Americans more credit for being well rounded about every subject, rather than a mass plighted by tunnel vision. Provided Obama gets the nomination, come November let's see if your "everyone" sees it. I'll try to let your "everyone" down as easy as possible.



Bobby, RS notes above that Obama “uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Obama said, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” And besides calling him his “mentor” he said, “he has been like family to me.” Those are facts, not opinions. If he never discussed politics with Wright why did he name him to a committee on his campaign?

Wright is the retired ex-pastor with extreme personal views. I have disagreements with rabbis. So? Controversial, but not of the context which Obama heard from later in those redundant soundbites. He was not at those specific services and again, to the blatant deafness of McCainites, it has been investigated by the media and proved that indeed Obama was not in attendance. And since when is being treated like family not an act of Christian kindness? That's a weird point to debate.




My point has nothing to do with recognizing “sides” of religious history or blacks using the church as” a sanctuary to discuss their treatment.” I recognize their history and don't begrudge them using the church as such a sanctuary – but that has nothing to do with the validity of “black theology.” Wright claims, “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture, that was controlled by rich white people!” That's factually incorrect, it's a revisionist view created to support a racist theology that has no place in the church. I can't help that some confused white dude buys into black theology, my church is colorblind.



Well I assume you ingested some facts that I gave you earlier. Again Wright puts addendum to Black theology, that includes is his own personal views. Coincidentally, I don't buy that your so colorblind. Last post you told how you wouldn't vote for anyone "Afrocentric", and now your concerned over Jesus skin color. While not all Black theologians agree on Jesus' skin color, you should learn that every culture in the world has Jesus depicted to their surrounding. Have you ever seen portraits of "Japanese Jesus?" How about "Aryan Jesus" hanging on the walls of American art galleries? When the Irish came to America they were looked upon as the new black.

Black Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (July 1979, Vol. 2):

"Whether one examines the contributions of George Liele or Andrew Bryan at the Yamacraw Baptist Church in 1777, or that of Absalom Jones and Richard Allen at Bethel Methodist Church in 1787, it becomes very evident that the attempt by black people to relate God to the black experience in a way which called into question the forces."



Not at all, I've made it clear from the start of the campaign that race is not an issue for me and I'm not neglecting history - I was discussing Christian theology.

Fair enough. With so many Christian theology brands to choose from, like domination's, good luck.



Disregarding the first sentence, I feel exactly the same way. I would no more vote for a candidate with “Afrocentric” views than I would one with “Eurocentric” views. To do so would be an affront to everyone else…and that's my point.

What a surprise! We disagree again! As an American, I'd vote for either one!

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.


And in the meantime, it is HILLARY who continues to Climb in Popularity! Just look at the following! It appears Wright had the Wrong effect on Obama's campaign, but for Obama, it is too late to change that! This is from TODAY!

Political Radar: Obama's Negatives Rise, Clinton Tops McCain in New Poll (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obamas-negative.html)

OMFG!!! That's amazing!!!!!!

Steve- I didn't know that you and Sky were both voting for Hillary. So many new revelations in one day. Wow! :eek:

Everyone? I think we should give our fellow Americans more credit for being well rounded about every subject, rather than a mass plighted by tunnel vision. Provided Obama gets the nomination, come November let's see if your "everyone" sees it. I'll try to let your "everyone" down as easy as possible.

Bobby, why are those of us who see Wright's influence on Obama, 20 years of membership, self-admitted mentor, friend, 'sounding board,' inspiration, etc. - and see the difference between Hillary's pastor's secret crime and Hagee's non-influence on McCain - the ones with tunnel vision? Even some of Wright's defenders noticed he went off the deep end this past weekend and acknowledge the justified problems Obama is in over this relationship - not to mention Obama and Wright themselves acknowledging the potential for controversy a year ago. And we have tunnel vision?



He was not at those specific services and again, to the blatant deafness of McCainites, it has been investigated by the media and proved that indeed Obama was not in attendance.

You keep saying that but not showing us. "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."


And since when is being treated like family not an act of Christian kindness? That's a weird point to debate.

You're taking things in a direction I haven't gone again. Your point is irrelevant to what I said, the discussion was on Wright's influence on Obama and that comment was one facet of a larger context.


Well I assume you ingested some facts that I gave you earlier. Again Wright puts addendum to Black theology, that includes is his own personal views.

LOL, no - you assumed I was ignorant of things of which I'm not ignorant. I don't know of a pastor that doesn't inject his or her own views into sermons, but I know about the Christian church and Christian theology and Wright's racism and antics have no place in either.


Coincidentally, I don't buy that your so colorblind. Last post you told how you wouldn't vote for anyone "Afrocentric", and now your concerned over Jesus skin color.

I never expressed concern, I said Wright's comments were "a revisionist view created to support a racist theology."


While not all Black theologians agree on Jesus' skin color, you should learn that every culture in the world has Jesus depicted to their surrounding. Have you ever seen portraits of "Japanese Jesus?" How about "Aryan Jesus" hanging on the walls of American art galleries? When the Irish came to America they were looked upon as the new black.

Yes, Jesus has been depicted with various racial identities - that wasn't my point. The point is Wright's brand of 'Christianity' is fabricated to support racist theology. Again, from one of Wright's admitted inspirations, James Cone:


"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."

That's not all:


In an interview (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html), Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Now you would have us believe that this man who would be president, who studied for two years at Occidental College, graduated from Columbia University and magna laude from Harvard Law School somehow didn't notice or comprehend this racist theology over a period of 20 years? Or, if he did it was just some insignificant area of disagreement with his friend and mentor?


Fair enough. With so many Christian theology brands to choose from, like domination's, good luck.

It has nothing to do with denominationalism, but the core principles of Christianity in which we do not find justification for racism and polarization in the church body.


What a surprise! We disagree again! As an American, I'd vote for either one!

That's odd Bobby, seeing as it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view.

That's odd Bobby, seeing as it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view.So you WANT a "white dominated society"?

It's kind of hard to ignore this kind of dedication:
8181

Sure it is if you look at the page as is:

Steve-

Instead of me coming home after a long day at the office to play chase Republican ghost postulates, or going over and over Black history another time or two with you, or discussing the numerous theologies that Christians teach, I'll just say that a few things you've said in these threads are disturbing, and I completely disagree. Granted much of all our views are based on experiences, our cultures, and ethnic history. For example: my family often jests that our family's tree looks like the United Nations. I'll make no excuses, perhaps this does place my ideologies closer to Obama, than McCain (or Clinton for that matter). I do like the fact that Obama is liberal on some issues and I'll add my deep respect and gratitude for him being a civil rights lawyer. Your arguments mostly boil down to this, is Obama a racist? The answer is, absolutely not! I'm waiting for McCain to charge him otherwise in the national debates. McCainites will regret that decision.

Does any one here believe that Obama is racist? Tell the truth...

Personally I think Rev Wrights latest rant may not be as bad for Obama as people think. It allowed the public to see the man in a suit and tie. This time he didn't deliver his rave from the pulpit but at a press club as someone much akin to a politician himself. The people got to see him for the first time not as a "racist" pastor but just like an old school black politician who says things that people are uncomfortable with. But now he looks like a politician that is in stark contrast to Obama who handles himself with grace and politeness. Obama has divorced himself from Right now and I think this press club rant will just become old news very quickly.

But id still like to know if people think Obama is a racist?

So you WANT a "white dominated society"?

Pay attention, NK. World Twice now I've said I WOULD NOT vote for someone with that world view or goal - that it would be an affront to everyone else. Don't twist my words.

Steve-

Instead of me coming home after a long day at the office to play chase Republican ghost postulates, or going over and over Black history another time or two with you, or discussing the numerous theologies that Christians teach, I'll just say that a few things you've said in these threads are disturbing, and I completely disagree. Granted much of all our views are based on experiences, our cultures, and ethnic history. For example: my family often jests that our family's tree looks like the United Nations. I'll make no excuses, perhaps this does place my ideologies closer to Obama, than McCain (or Clinton for that matter). I do like the fact that Obama is liberal on some issues and I'll add my deep respect and gratitude for him being a civil rights lawyer. Your arguments mostly boil down to this, is Obama a racist? The answer is, absolutely not! I'm waiting for McCain to charge him otherwise in the national debates. McCainites will regret that decision.

Bobby, if it were someone else I might find this disturbing, but I think you've been hearing me but not listening to what I'm saying. I find it disturbing that the same people that are supposedly trying to put an end to racism are justifying it in the case of "black theology." I'm the one saying there is room for and even joy in celebrating cultural differences in the church - but no room for racism and hatred - and it's going right over your heads. I find it disturbing that I would twice say that I wouldn't vote for a candidate with racist views on either side of the aisle and you guys are scratching your heads like I'm the racist fool. Isn't that exactly what you normally would expect from me, to reject the racist candidate, expect a church free of racism and other destructive theology? I think so, but you and NK are managing to find something completely different in my words.

And for the record (for you, too Skell), I don't think Obama is racist. But I do think he's either been dishonest or naïve - and probably both - when it comes to this area of his life.

Dishonest I don't know. Naïve ill grant you that. But does naivity in an area in his life that won't effect his ability as a politcian really need to be gone over and over and over and over. He's not racist, he doesn't hold racist beliefs. His ex pastor may be a racist. So what. Get over it I think is the term I've heard bandied around here lately. Ill never argue with your right to oppose his views on political issues but this is beginning to get boring don't you think? American politics is indeed a theatrical stage.

But just so we are clear? If he isn't a racist but simply naïve what then is the problem? Why is it generating such an interest. Is it in the hope that he will somehow spit out some racist remark or morph into a racist?

Do I think he's a racist ? Not really . Nor do I think he is naiive .I think he was born and raised in a yuppy existence and went to the Trinity Unity Church for street cred . It served a political purpose... just like Rev Wright said . But it does put this mythology surrounding Obama to bed once and for all.

Pay attention, NK. World Twice now I've said I WOULD NOT vote for someone with that world view or goal - that it would be an affront to everyone else. Don't twist my words.I AM paying attention. Here's your quote:

That's odd Bobby, seeing as it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view.So the "left" preaches against a "white dominated society" and you don't like that. What are we left with then?

I think he was born and raised in a yuppy existance
Really now.
Barack Obama is worth $1.3M, McCain: $40.4M
Millionaires-in-Chief - Obama's money (5) - Money Magazine (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html)

They pretend to be just like you and me, but there is only one candidate in this race that can come close to making that assertion without causing widespread nausea. Barack Obama.


And more of McCain's life of privilege:
_7PfSEtiXPw

It is not relevant what their income is now . I clearly said born and raised a yuppie (not rich) . He did not come from a ghetto existence . He went to private schools from his elementary days and went to the best universities in the country .

It was only when he decided to be a "community activist " that he went to this church . It was all political calculation ;Just like this blow out between him and Rev Wright is . It is a fact that Obama discussed the possibility of cutting the Rev out with him before he even announced his candidacy because of his controversial comment from the pulpit.

It is not relevent what their income is now .
Sure it is, when people try to pass themselves off as a "Man of the People (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Man-People-Life-John-McCain-Paul-Alexander/9780471475453-item.html?pticket=lifp4kirvfaknr45wqb00kqo5kveeLSf mx1VF83v5h93NvGwJDo%3d)"
Just like Wright and religion it probably shouldn't be relevant but you make it so. Don't worry, when McCain comes out of hiding we'll begin starting multiple threads outlining his shortcomings.

I'll probably agree with most of them . As you will recall ;McCain was not my top choice for the position.

I miss Ron. :(

The dirty secret in the Republican party is that the Ronulans are still mobilized and trying still to wrest the nomination from McCain. Paul has not officially dropped out of the race ,and his people have done much to undermine McCain at Repuiblican conventions at the state level .

Check out what happened at the Nevada convention last week.
Ron Paul supporters not lining up behind McCain - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-trailgop2-2008may02,0,5989306.story)

But just so we are clear? If he isnt a racist but simply naive what then is the problem? Why is it generating such an interest. Is it in the hope that he will somehow spit out some racist remark or morph into a racist?

He was naïve if he didn't think this would create the firestorm that it has. He was naïve if he thought he could breeze through the election without answering for it.

I AM paying attention. Here's your quote:
So the "left" preaches against a "white dominated society" and you don't like that. What are we left with then?

NK, I said no such thing. This is what I said, "it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view." It really should need no explanation but nonetheless, "white dominated society" is the object of "that world view" - not the left's preaching about it. I wouldn't vote for a white racist any more than I'd vote for any other racist.

Bobby, if it were someone else I might find this disturbing, but I think you've been hearing me but not listening to what I'm saying. I find it disturbing that the same people that are supposedly trying to put an end to racism are justifying it in the case of "black theology." I'm the one saying there is room for and even joy in celebrating cultural differences in the church - but no room for racism and hatred - and it's going right over your heads. I find it disturbing that I would twice say that I wouldn't vote for a candidate with racist views on either side of the aisle and you guys are scratching your heads like I'm the racist fool. Isn't that exactly what you normally would expect from me, to reject the racist candidate, expect a church free of racism and other destructive theology? I think so, but you and NK are managing to find something completely different in my words.

And for the record (for you, too Skell), I don't think Obama is racist. But I do think he's either been dishonest or naive - and probably both - when it comes to this area of his life.


The base of Black theology is not racist. Old retired ex-pastor Wright continues to add his addendum's to Black theology that are his opinions, albeit extreme. That's almost naïve as claiming Cinco de Mayo is a day of about Latino supremacist celebrations. The subject is mostly controversial for some people of non-color, because mainstream churches today are embarrassed to have it repeated that their white "Christian" relatives held Blacks in slavery. I know where the naïve end started as it wasn't with Obama. As for listening, I never heard one, not one Republican in these forums start by interjecting that Obama's not a racist. After months of witch hunting and innuendos, "hallelajuh" I'm finally hearing some admitting that Obama's not racist! Small miracles never cease to amaze me. I'm going to work now this has made my day! ;)

A long time ago (1984 )the Pope ,then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote essays on what he saw as the flaws in liberation theology .He warned against the temptation to see the Christian message exclusively in a political context, thus missing the central role of Jesus Christ in man's liberation. He said liberation theology was dangerous becaused it fused “the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectics."
No the base of liberation theology is not racist ;it is Marxist .But Rev Wright's interpretation is separatists so how could it not be racist ?

The base of Black theology is not racist. Old retired ex-pastor Wright continues to add his addendum's to Black theology that are his opinions, albeit extreme. That's almost naïve as claiming Cinco de Mayo is a day of about Latino supremacist celebrations.

Bobby, my original point on "black theology" is that there isn't - or shouldn't be - a separate Christian theology for blacks. Obama in Philadelphia told us "the fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning." At least after seeing his pastor go out for 3 appearances and confirm those sound bites weren't something he could say was taken out of context, that 'surprise' should be no wonder to him any longer.


The subject is mostly controversial for some people of non-color, because mainstream churches today are embarrassed to have it repeated that their white "Christian" relatives held Blacks in slavery.

The more liberal churches are embarrassed and that shame and guilt is their problem. The rest of us take offense at trying to be shamed for a 'theology' that says all white men are responsible for oppressing blacks (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8159).


I know where the naïve end started as it wasn't with Obama. As for listening, I never heard one, not one Republican in these forums start by interjecting that Obama's not a racist. After months of witch hunting and innuendos, "hallelajuh" I'm finally hearing some admitting that Obama's not racist! Small miracles never cease to amaze me. I'm going to work now this has made my day! ;)

I don't know about the others, but for myself the question was about Obama's judgment and character, not whether he is a racist. I've stated that plainly several times.

Bobby, my original point on "black theology" is that there isn't - or shouldn't be - a separate Christian theology for blacks. Obama in Philadelphia told us "the fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning." At least after seeing his pastor go out for 3 appearances and confirm those sound bites weren't something he could say was taken out of context, that 'surprise' should be no wonder to him any longer.

The more liberal churches are embarrassed and that shame and guilt is their problem. The rest of us take offense at trying to be shamed for a 'theology' that says all white men are responsible for oppressing blacks (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8159).

I don't know about the others, but for myself the question was about Obama's judgment and character, not whether or not he is a racist. I've stated that plainly several times.



It's a fact that Black theology occurred because blacks were not seen as the human equals to be at white churches in the eyes of their white Christian slave owners. Ever heard of "White" theology? That's been around a lot longer than "Black" theology. All Christianity should had been ashamed for that part of history, but that's even not something that Obama dwells on. And I'm certainly not saying that you personally are responsible for their actions, but you should respect that African-Americans endured something that makes them unique in their struggles of hardships. For example: if I ever said to my rabbi, gabbai, or whipered in the cantor's ear, that Germany shouldn't be embarrassed, or shamed, or have remorse for hitler's hell on earth (and what the holocaust represented to Jews) or how it altered and effected our history... could you imagine the looks and correction that I would receive at shul? I'd be chastised until moshiach came or my natural death! In a perfect world there wouldn't had been black slaves, but that's not the course of history America decided upon. Personally I think our country has made great strides since then, but remember black people didn't even have equal public freedoms that most people already enjoyed until the 1960's. And that's not that long ago. Jeremiah Wright, in my book, is as religiously extreme in his personal views as many other "Christian" pastors, such as Hagee, or any other two dozen evangelicals sucking up attention and draining old ladies out of their retirement. In fact, Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in a commercial together represent two more strange ducks as well. Fortunately none of these clowns, black or white, are running for president.



I don't know about the others, but for myself the question was about Obama's judgment and character, not whether or not he is a racist. I've stated that plainly several times.

The Republican party, not you personally, scattered innuendo that Obama was the splitting image of Wright, an extremist who went way outside the lines of Black theology. The Republicans used this as a smear tactic and they know it. The Pubs actually have no choice because they're leading a weak candidate to a more-than-likely consolation prize. Hillary piled on because she needs to make up ground and she'll do anything by hook or crook. I'm going to break for shabbos soon. :)

It's a fact that Black theology occurred because blacks were not seen as the human equals to be at white churches in the eyes of their white Christian slave owners...

Bobby, who's denying that? Regardless, there is no room for a racist theology in the church, and I refuse to justify it for whatever reason. It's that simple.


And I'm certainly not saying that you personally are responsible for their actions, but you should respect that African-Americans endured something that makes them unique in their struggles of hardships.

I do have that respect... it still does not justify a racist theology in the church.


For example: if I ever said to my rabbi, gabbai, or whipered in the cantor's ear, that Germany shouldn't be embarrassed, or shamed, or have remorse for hitler's hell on earth (and what the holocaust represented to Jews) or how it altered and effected our history... could you imagine the looks and correction that I would receive at shul? I'd be chastised until moshiach came or my natural death!

Somehow I see the holocaust in a much more eggregious light, but the fact is if the goal is racial unity then there is no room for a racist theology in the church... especially because of your next comment, we have made great strides and this is a setback.


Jeremiah Wright, in my book, is as religiously extreme in his personal views as many other "Christian" pastors, such as Hagee, or any other two dozen evangelicals sucking up attention and draining old ladies out of their retirement. In fact, Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in a commercial together represent two more strange ducks as well. Fortunately none of these clowns, black or white, are running for president.

I agree and disagree, I don't see Hagee as being as extreme as Wright. In fact, the most referenced example of his alleged anti-Catholic bigotry - calling the Catholic church the Great Whore - is an assumption. He never once said that in the video they use. Look it up. Otherwise, I have no use for televangelists - but they shouldn't be unfairly criticized any more than Obama, Wright or anyone else.


The Republicans used this as a smear tactic and they know it.

I guess you haven't noticed any of that from the Dems, eh? Like their latest ad purposely distorting McCain's 100 year remark? They're all going to get roughed up...

Shabbat Shalom my friend.

No the base of liberation theology is not racist ;it is Marxist .But Rev Wright's interpretation is separatists so how could it not be racist ?

Exactly. What blows me away here is that we're being asked to excuse it. If this racism is justified, somebody please tell me where else we can justify racism.

Bobby, who's denying that? Regardless, there is no room for a racist theology in the church, and I refuse to justify it for whatever reason. It's that simple.


If it was that simple we would be in agreement between the differences of Wright's personal views and Black theology.



I do have that respect...it still does not justify a racist theology in the church.

And what racist theology would that be?

A Black Theology of Liberation (http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html)

The Goal of a Black Theology of Liberation

"What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

Karl Barth--who was not black--recognized the legitimacy of this demand. "For this reason, Barth wrote, "in the relations and events in the life of his people, God always takes his stand unconditionally and passionately on this side alone: against the lofty and on behalf of the lowly; against those who already enjoy right and privilege and on behalf of those who are denied it and deprived of it."

Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless." But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity." "






Somehow I see the holocaust in a much more eggregious light, but the fact is if the goal is racial unity then there is no room for a racist theology in the church...especially because of your next comment, we have made great strides and this is a setback..


We (our nation as a whole) have made great strides, but why would respecting the hardships of African-Americans and understanding their plight as using their church as a haven to foster equality, not apply yesterday or today? I give them space to speak their peace or make their case and I'm not even a Christian.




I agree and disagree, I don't see Hagee as being as extreme as Wright. In fact, the most referenced example of his alleged anti-Catholic bigotry - calling the Catholic church the Great Whore - is an assumption. He never once said that in the video they use. Look it up. Otherwise, I have no use for televangelists - but they shouldn't be unfairly criticized any more than Obama, Wright or anyone else.


But yet Wright's extreme views, which BTW often abandon Black theology, are not his assumptions? Huh? Hagee has Catholics and Jews on greased sleds aimed toward a fiery eternal furnace. And yet one goofball's assumption is justified over another's? I wouldn't encourage that to be used as a defense. :eek:




I guess you haven't noticed any of that from the Dems, eh? Like their latest ad purposely distorting McCain's 100 year remark? They're all going to get roughed up...

You got to be kidding me? McCain's a distortion to himself. Every time the Republicans actually let Bozo-McCain out to play they end having to do damage control and the Dems are not even focusing on him yet. :p

McCain clarifies remark about oil, Iraq war (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90DPTUG2&show_article=1)

""My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters. "

A long time ago (1984 )the Pope ,then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote essays on what he saw as the flaws in liberation theology .He warned against the temptation to see the Christian message exclusively in a political context, thus missing the central role of Jesus Christ in man's liberation. He said liberation theology was dangerous becaused it fused “the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectics."
No the base of liberation theology is not racist ;it is Marxist .But Rev Wright's interpretation is separatists so how could it not be racist ?

Tom, you might be interested in the following linked article. I know you're Catholic and I think the Catholic church does a lot of good. My posting the link has more to do with the borrowing of such ideology and not necessarily being good or bad, but that "Marxism" has been used and associated with many others to some degree. Personally when I read the word "Marxism" associated with commentary on theology or an individual, I'm more inclined to consider it an opinionated witch hunt than factually based.

Marxist background of John Paul II revealed in The Tablet - Wojtyla's book Catholic Social Ethics borrows fundamental concepts from Marxism @ TraditionInAction.org (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_037_WojtylaMarx.htm)

If it was that simple we would be in agreement between the differences of Wright's personal views and Black theology.

About Wright's "personal views," here's the thing (and this is the basis for my entire argument), he tells his people from the pulpit that it's "in the bible." Where? This is what's in my bible, and I'm sure in Wright's bible in Romans 12:


Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

And in Philippians 2:


Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

The church has one universal basis - the bible - and in spite of varying interpretations in some areas the above principles are clear.


And what racist theology would that be?.

What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less.

That's not true, if it were that simple we would have no objection. Black theology is "reductionist," it reduces the gospel to one theme, liberation of the oppressed - and then takes it further in concluding this must be seen from the viewpoint of blacks. Wright's mentor, Cone, basically says whites as the oppressors must become "black." From an interview with William Hordern:


Hordern: To paraphrase a question put to Jesus, who then can become black?

Cone: I contend that if a white-skinned person is authentically black, then there is no need to assure him of his authenticity. For to be black is to know the ambiguity of the black experience, and this is true for one who is literally black. The certainty of a person’s affirmation of blackness is bound up with the struggle for liberation, and that experience has its own ambiguities. I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community. I see no reason why I should spend time giving him personal counsel on how to be black.

I'm sorry, but I don't need counsel "on how to be black."


In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

As if blacks are the only ones that are fatherless, needy and poor - and if they are they still find their hope through black theology? Again from the interview:


Hordern: In using the term “black” to describe all oppressed people, do you really speak to the need of oppressed people whose skins are of other colors? For example, in North America today the Indian people are taking pride in their history and are speaking of “Red Power.” Is a black theology a help or a hindrance to communicating with such people?

Cone: Whether black theology is a help or hindrance to other persons of color who are not black will have to be decided by the victims who are red, brown, or whatever color. I cannot answer that, but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel. In my experience with persons of color who are not Afro-American, they have not raised difficulties with my choice of blackness.

What the heck kind of theology says "but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel?" The very idea of "black theology" is exclusionary. Any objective person should take offense at a gospel based on black "authenticity." My bible says nothing of black "authenticity" as a requirement to be "liberated" by "the God the oppressed." Yes there is a need and obligation to literally liberate the oppressed, but this theology detracts from the gospel message of our need to be freed from the bondage of sin.


Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

No? Why can the church not "say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy" if that's the truth? The scriptures warn specifically of what happens to the "slothful" or the "sluggard." Should we not also?


Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless."

Talk about condescending BS, my concern and love for others is colorblind and if I catch myself doing anything for my "own religious piety" I quickly remind myself it's not about me. In the case of race relations it's more guilt than emotion and sentimentality, culturally, socially or self-imposed guilt off which black theology feeds. That is a barrier in race relations, a detriment to Christian theology and invariably defeats the purpose of "liberation" theology. There can be no liberation when one side is imposing guilt on the other.


But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

No, releasing oneself from bitterness, hatred and extending forgiveness is the path to power and dignity. Walter Williams gets it (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html):

I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.

Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.


We (our nation as a whole) have made great strides, but why would respecting the hardships of African-Americans and understanding their plight as using their church as a haven to foster equality, not apply yesterday or today? I give them space to speak their peace or make their case and I'm not even a Christian.

Bobby, you keep acting as if I begrudge them a haven and understanding and besides the fact that I don't, it has nothing to do with my point on "black theology."


But yet Wright's extreme views, which BTW often abandon Black theology, are not his assumptions? Huh? Hagee has Catholics and Jews on greased sleds aimed toward a fiery eternal furnace. And yet one goofball's assumption is justified over another's? I wouldn't encourage that to be used as a defense. :eek:

The assumptions I referred to are on the part of Hagee's critics, not Hagee himself. Those who call him anti-semitic are working on assumptions also. But if he deserves criticism then he deserves criticism, just base it on the facts.


You got to be kidding me? McCain's a distortion to himself. Every time the Republicans actually let Bozo-McCain out to play they end having to do damage control and the Dems are not even focusing on him yet. :p

That's weak. A heck of a lot weaker than having to explain the "bitterness" of gun totin' religious fanatics, a 20 year relationship with a mentor the thinks the US invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks or hanging out with terrorists. The DNC commercial is blatantly dishonest and they know it.

Steve, you've been a good sport. I'm going to take the opportunity now to provide illumination through agreeing with you when possible. I've got a family to look after so instead of spending more time on a redundant subject that will have many sticking points, I'll close out and then let you have the last thoughts.



About Wright's "personal views," here's the thing (and this is the basis for my entire argument), he tells his people from the pulpit that it's "in the bible." Where? This is what's in my bible, and I'm sure in Wright's bible in Romans 12:

And in Philippians 2:

The church has one universal basis - the bible - and in spite of varying interpretations in some areas the above principles are clear.

That's not true, if it were that simple we would have no objection. Black theology is "reductionist," it reduces the gospel to one theme, liberation of the oppressed - and then takes it further in concluding this must be seen from the viewpoint of blacks. Wright's mentor, Cone, basically says whites as the oppressors must become "black." From an interview with William Hordern:


Actually it's factually true that Black theology does not. But I do agree, that in part, Black "liberation" theology, that affixed itself with various opinions, much later does. But still not at the degree of racism which most of the controversy is emitting. Back in the 1800's (and I forget the mans name), there was a black slave that escaped and he ended up taking vengeance by murdering sixty white people. Of course what he did was wrong, that's why most blacks of all Christian churches would rather go the route of MLK Jr. than Malcolm X, given most circumstances. Obama is without doubt much closer to MLK Jr..



I'm sorry, but I don't need counsel "on how to be black."

Sure you do. Repeat to yourself, "I'm black, I'm proud, and I'll vote for Obama." Never mind! But a healthy esteem is good for you!




As if blacks are the only ones that are fatherless, needy and poor - and if they are they still find their hope through black theology? Again from the interview:

What the heck kind of theology says "but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel?" The very idea of "black theology" is exclusionary. Any objective person should take offense at a gospel based on black "authenticity." My bible says nothing of black "authenticity" as a requirement to be "liberated" by "the God the oppressed." Yes there is a need and obligation to literally liberate the oppressed, but this theology detracts from the gospel message of our need to be freed from the bondage of sin.

The Christian bible didn't say anything about white theology either and blacks being inferior, but that's was taught for the better part of a century and unfortunately the notion still lingers albeit on a much smaller percentage scale today. MLK Jr. was correct to teach civil rights from a biblical perspective. As for Cone, it appears he's not speaking of literally being black. He actually inserts that the point is oppression and "yes" the black community has had marked poverty compared to whites. It is a fact that there are many black single parents, not that this does not happen to all ethnicity's.



No? Why can the church not "say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy" if that's the truth? The scriptures warn specifically of what happens to the "slothful" or the "sluggard." Should we not also?.

Rest assure that Christian supremacist of the Aryan race down at the local KKK rally have rationalized that as applicable to all African-Americans. Of course, thank G-d, that doesn't apply to the far majority of the Christian church populace though. But I do agree that there is individual responsibilities, regardless of color.



Talk about condescending BS, my concern and love for others is colorblind and if I catch myself doing anything for my "own religious piety" I quickly remind myself it's not about me. In the case of race relations it's more guilt than emotion and sentimentality, culturally, socially or self-imposed guilt off of which black theology feeds. That is a barrier in race relations, a detriment to Christian theology and invariably defeats the purpose of "liberation" theology. There can be no liberation when one side is imposing guilt on the other.

It's more about civil and human rights as a conduit via their religion, not that I agree with everything that's being asserted from their point of view. But it's a platform to be heard. You're thinking like they are speaking of being liberated from you or the actions of your Church personally. Actually I don't read where they are imposing guilt on you. What they are more concerned with is the government as well, but I'm not going over that part again and again.



No, releasing oneself from bitterness, hatred and extending forgiveness is the path to power and dignity. Walter Williams gets it (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html):

I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.

Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.

In part if Williams would just say the government acting like damn fools it would make more sense. Most African-Americans are not in conflict with any other race, they just have a such a different history to work from than most mainstream Americans.




Bobby, you keep acting as if I begrudge them a haven and understanding and besides the fact that I don't, it has nothing to do with my point on "black theology."

That's why it's a none factor for myself and doesn't raise my blood pressure.



The assumptions I referred to are on the part of Hagee's critics, not Hagee himself. Those who call him anti-semitic are working on assumptions also. But if he deserves criticism then he deserves criticism, just base it on the facts.

Steve, I'm not on his heaven' list. But really for me what he thinks is not that important nor to anyone in the Jewish community.


That's weak. A heck of a lot weaker than having to explain the "bitterness" of gun totin' religious fanatics, a 20 year relationship with a mentor the thinks the US invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks or hanging out with terrorists. The DNC commercial is blatantly dishonest and they know it.


I'm not sure what commercial you're speaking of since I don't have time to be watching much TV lately. I can't really address that one way or the other. As for my point though, the strength is so elementary that even Watson wouldn't need Sherlock's insights. It's 'McCain said something verses Wright said something,' not McCain vs. Obama. McCain's the guinea pig on the treadmill going nowhere. It's like Tom alluded to in another post in that the Republicans are not doing themselves any favors in finding ways to lose elections. In fact, I'm not so sure they are not trying to lose this one and yet save face for 2012.

I'm going to do you a favor and leave my last word on this thread to address this:


Sure you do. Repeat to yourself, "I'm black, I'm proud, and I'll vote for Obama." Never mind! But a healthy esteem is good for you!

I'm white, I can't dance, but I do clap on 2 and 4! As Michelle Malkin asked, If “white people clap differently than black people,” how does Barack Obama clap (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/28/monday-morning-engine-starter-jeremiah-wright-racial-phrenologist/)? But hey, you may have hit on something to replace "yes, we can!"

Steve
P.S. Did you hear Dale Hansen rant about the Pacman deal? He said "If character doesn't matter, why don't they sign Osama bin Laden to play wide receiver? After all, he's 6'4", and we know nobody can catch him."

Tell Dale Hansen that as elusive as OBL has been he doesn't have Pacman's speed and run a 4.4 forty. :)

After multiple postings on this thred I still think the key question has not been addressed. Obama sat in the pews of this church for over 20 years and listened to sermons (let's put aside the anti-American screeds for the moment ) that addressed black liberation theology... clearly a separatist if not racist,and in my view marxist theology. His book describes his conversion which suggests he bought into the theology. But he also wrote in his book that "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear."

This suggests to me that my guess that Obama attended the church more for the purpose of political convenience is probably the most accurate explanation to this strange relationship .Obama does not espouse separatism on the campaign trail and has been weakest when trying to explain the contradiction.

Now that Hillary's campaign is on the verge of being euthanized like the horse she bet on in the Kentucky Derby ,perhaps it's time for Obama to make a clean break like Oprah did and say something similar to what he said in his "victory speech "last night... that he is not perfect ;that he is a just a politician ,with the inherent weaknesses associated in the profession ,who thinks he would make a better President than the rest of the field.

who thinks he would make a better President than the rest of the field.Hello tom:

I don't know if it was a question, but I'm answering anyway. I think he'd be a better president than the other two.

excon

Hello tom:

I dunno if it was a question, but I'm answering anyway. I think he'd be a better president than the other two.

excon

Ex, the question I don't recall seeing answered with much substance is why? I mean, beyond being able to send a thrill up Chris Matthews' leg, what makes him the man?

Hello again, Steve:

He's NOT the man. He's, in my view, the lessor of the evils we are being presented with. I KNOW what Hillary will do. I KNOW what McCain will do. I wouldn't do ANY of that.

I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. I certainly don't think he'll be worse, and, of course, he could actually be much better.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

He's NOT the man. He's, in my view, the lessor of the evils we are being presented with. I KNOW what Hillary will do. I KNOW what McCain will do. I wouldn't do ANY of that.

I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. I certainly don't think he'll be worse, and, of course, he could actually be much better.

excon

Sounds a lot like why I'm voting for McCain :D