Reverend Wright

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Radar

These people have repeated their nonsense to me for nearly 4 decades and my political views are not swayed by any of them in the least. There is no correlation between the people you associate yourself with and your political beliefs.

Yabut, you aren't normal.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by Radar

I don't care what anyone says other than the candidate himself. I don't care who his friends or family are, whom they have sex with, what religion they follow, etc. None of these have any bearing on the candidate's ability to lead or of that person's character.

That's where we differ. A leader doesn't sit in a church for 20 years and have a personal friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor that is opposite of everything he stands for. Obama is against divisive people and politics. Rev Wright is divisive - Obama admits that. And that's his spitual advisor, and close mentor?

Several years ago I moved to a new town. I went to a new church. As I went in, there were folks standing in front getting peole to sign up for the pro-life movement and collecting donations and holding the vulgar signs of aborted fetuses. The sermon - you guessed it - was all about influencing our politicians to stop abortion. I am pro-life, but I don't want my sermons on Sunday to focus on this. I never went back to that church again.

This isn't some random person Obama talks to on occasion. Its his personal friend and mentor. "God damn America" may have been said to get the people riled up, and as strong language condemning the actions of the government. But were talking about a Presidential hopeful here - and he stands with people that repeatedly say "God damn America" and that whites purposely spread AIDS among blacks, and that its the whites fault blacks break laws and end up in jail. I certainly don't want a President that surrounds himself with people that think this way.

Obama has proven to me he isn't a leader - something I've suspected all along.

[Undertoad]

people that repeatedly say

Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

people that repeatedly say

Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.

How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period? How do we know that isn't just his regular MO? Do we have video that is all light and positivity? Is positivity a word?

Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.

Otherwise, I may as well get in line for a glass of kool-aid.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.

All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend. Fuck, you could show a short clip of Hilter or Pol Pot holding a baby and loop that over and over again and make him look like a decent guy. I don't judge celebrities over the one picture taken that makes them look like an idiot. We have seen at most three minutes of a guy, out of context by the way, that Obama has been connected too for at least 62,400 minutes (20 years, once a week, for an hour long service). That is a ratio of 4.81E-5 or 0.0000481. This is nothing more than propaganda.

I want to hear at least a guess to this question. Why is the Reverend taking so much flack for his words? They are not that extreme, why so intense?

Originally Posted by Flint

Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.

I agree, I question Obama more than anyone because of his platform but this is not something that I can agree with. You just have to look through tw's long threads of Bush's repeated wacky born-again religiosity to see how it affects American politics but there is not enough evidence to show that Obama shares the same views as this guy or even that it will affect his leadership ability.

First, Obama is close to Osama and his middle name is Hussein.
Second, Obama is an Islamic extremist.
Third, Obama associates himself with an anti-American racist (I have yet to see anything that suggests he is anti-American or racist).

This is just a silly trend of conservative smear tactics. There are many reasons for Obama to be illegitimizes, but this is not one of them.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

This is just a silly trend of conservative smear tactics.

You don't think the Hillary machine is behind this smear?

[lookout123]

Honestly I think the Bill/Hill machine is behind this one. They have more to gain from it at this point. They are as skilled at manipulating the press monkeys as anyone in the public eyes for at least a generation.

The R smear camp is most likely sitting back, digging for dirt, and taking notes.

/straightens tinfoil hat/

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period? How do we know that isn't just his regular MO? Do we have video that is all light and positivity? Is positivity a word?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend. Fuck, you could show a short clip of Hilter or Pol Pot holding a baby and loop that over and over again and make him look like a decent guy. I don't judge celebrities over the one picture taken that makes them look like an idiot. We have seen at most three minutes of a guy, out of context by the way, that Obama has been connected too for at least 62,400 minutes (20 years, once a week, for an hour long service). That is a ratio of 4.81E-5 or 0.0000481. This is nothing more than propaganda.

I'm going to assume you quoted the wrong paragraph of my post, since my first paragraph basically said what you retorted, just from the other angle. Now, let's see some happy vids of this guy. They must exist?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I'm going to assume you quoted the wrong paragraph of my post, since my first paragraph basically said what you retorted, just from the other angle. Now, let's see some happy vids of this guy. They must exist?

All the videos I saw came from news channels, and the news channels won't show happy videos of the Reverend because that would go against their agenda, so without actually going to the sermon and taping them myself, I can't help you there. Thats why this is called propaganda.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period?

Because it would otherwise be much longer and/or have worse stuff in it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Aimeecc, no realistic presidential candidate has great leadership skills.

McCain has a much different stance than what he had ten years ago, Clinton flip flops to whatever the popular opinion is, and Obama has this.

Besides third tier candidates such as Kucinich and Paul, I don't think any candidate says what he or she actually thinks.

[aimeecc]

The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.

We expected scandals and covered up deals from the Clintons. She isn't running on a platform that says "I don't have scandals and shady deals." Obama is running a campaign on "I represent the future and unity and Clinton is divisive" but he is surrounded by people (or at least one person) that are divisive as his mentors and who are about the past.

And yes, Wright said "God damn America" more than once. That makes its repeated.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Obama is running a campaign on "I represent the future and unity and Clinton is divisive" but he is surrounded by people (or at least one person) that are divisive as his mentors and who are about the past.

Divisive? Every decisive leader is divisive if that is your definition. To be a decisive leader means one will be divisive.

What do you want? Someone who is politically correct or someone who is honest enough to be a leader? Talk about divisive. Mayor Koch of NYC was extremely divisive - and therefore was one of NYC's best mayors. His ‘Koch Quips’ were famous since he had a bad habit is speaking honestly and frankly. Koch took NYC from the verge of bankruptcy into growth. Giuliani was most divisive. And yet he too was the next NYC mayor that actually got things done. Mayor Lindsay was so much less divisive - and all but bankrupted NYC.

You must decide which you want. An honest leader who will be divisive because he is honest and therefore hears from all. Or a politically correct leader which means he lies and he must even condone corruption. You cannot have it both ways. Which do you want - an honest (divisive) leader or a corrupt nice guy who refuses to hear from anyone what might ruffle feathers?

Meanwhile, you are making assumptions. Obama does not have one spiritual leader. Only a wacko extremist would hear only from one advisor. A leader would hear from the Pope, the Dai Lama, Buddhist priests, and Baha’is. Ever go to Baptist revival services? Ever go to a Jewish service? I believe I had been to every denomination in my community. Does that mean I am divisive because I heard them preach things contrary to popular beliefs? I even listen now and again to Rush Limbaugh because I don't have extremist bias hate - even though Limbaugh preaches hate.

An honest person does not care what that minister is because virtually all religions preach various degrees of hate. My church taught us to condemn all Jews because of what happened to Christ. If informed, then you know which church that was. So do I also believe what Hitler preached? Or did I, instead, ignore the silly preaching from my church - that also endorses pedophilia?

Either the honest leader will also be divisive, or a political correct leader will be indecisive and condone corruption. Which one do you want?

[Flint]

Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.

[Undertoad]

The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.

Right: the person who stands for unity, has friends who don't share his politics precisely.

There's no incongruity there. And I admire it. For most of the time I was a hard-core Libertarian, my best friend was a Socialist. That's a REAL oil and water situation! But if you're an adult, politics is only a small part of why you're in a relationship with someone. You can even admire them and think that they get a lot of things wrong. It's called being open-minded, tolerant, considering all sides.

Now let's admit it: like 50% of the population, you sought hard to find something not to like about the guy. And as of now, this is the worst people could come back with. Really? Because if that's the case, he has my vote.