View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:56 pm



Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Black liberation theology 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Minneapolis
Post Black liberation theology
Trinity church of Christ, Senator Obama's church for over 20 years, openly adopted black liberation theology as their teachings, and included it in their churches official vision statement.

James Cone first systematized black liberation theology in 1966. He is considered it's leading theologian, and authored it's seminal work in 1969, 'Black Theology and Black Power'. Rev. Wright preached often about black liberation theology, and often referenced Cone's writings. Cone has been quoted as saying that he would "point to Trinity first" as an example of a church embodying his message. From Cones writings, often referenced by Wright in his sermons:

<i>"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. 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 ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."</i>

This is not bullshit, this is actually the theology that was openly taught at Obama's church. This is his spiritual belief system as evidenced by his membership there for over 20 years.

_________________
Its all because of the Humans...


Tue May 06, 2008 12:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
Yes. Barack Obama wants to kill whitey.

Jesus. What, have you been sucking Shaun Hannity's dick or something? I can't believe there are people who buy into this line of ignorant, KKK-fueled, Conservative Masturbatory Fantasy bullshit.




I mean, really. Christ.


Tue May 06, 2008 12:09 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Minneapolis
Post 
From Trinity Church of Christ's own web site:

<i>The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.</i>

The excerpt above is taken directly from that book. I'm not saying Obama wants to kill whitey. I'm just saying he belonged to a church that openly taught what many would consider a racist theology. Make up your own mind on whether it's important or not.

And for the record, Robert Byrd, the Democrat from West Virginia is the only current member of Congress to be in the KKK. He held the rank of Exalted Cyclops.

Yeah....

_________________
Its all because of the Humans...


Tue May 06, 2008 12:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
In an interview with Terry Gross, the Reverend James Cone, founder of Black Liberation Theology discussed the recent flap over Reverend Wright's sermons and the way they were distorted in the media. It truly was a breath if Fresh Air! I am so tired of shallow, misleading pseudo discussions...I just keep dreaming that the political discussion in this country can rise out of the gutter level swift boating we see all too often. Come with me below to learn more about this.

"It is hard for me to keep up my enthusiasm for the campaign in spite of Senator Obama's continual growth of stature as a statesman. I do not enjoy watching people around me, who I normally respect very much, suddenly get reduced to mindless robots when the media dupes them with its out of context sensationalism. What is even more disturbing is the stupifying effect this stuff has on people. Once mesmerized by the hype, you can not snap them out of it and hope to engage them in a rational discussion about the context in which statements were made. Today was the ultimate exception! Here are some of the things that were talked about:

Quote:
In a now-famous 2003 sermon, Wright charged that an ingrained, abiding racism in American society is at fault for many of the troubles African-Americans face, and he thundered, "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people.


"I'm sure this community is aware of the Biblical context for Wright's admonishment of the policies of our government. We must all have watched the sermon at least once. Why would anyone want to put themselves in a position of making an important judgment based only on a very, very short - out of context - extract? I can only surmise that they must have been waiting for that opportunity. If so, were they doing it consciously? I think not.

"George Lakoff has written much about the importance of framing issues in the public mind. The reaction to these snippets can only be so strongly effective if their groundwork has been laid well. That's what is so scary about our politics. That's why it is dangerous for those of us who can see at a glance that a scam is at work here to assume that because it is so transparent to us it can not possibly work.

"How many can remember election night 2004 when the realization that they had done it to us again began to sink in? I remember feeling very sick. Whether you buy Lakoff's whole pitch or not, it behooves you to consider his ideas in this context. Beautiful rhetoric and facts work in a limited way in this context. That's the sickening reality of the human mind and its function.

"That's what these teachers and leaders are up against. Reverend Cone's approach is aimed at doing something about this enormous problem:


Quote:
Cone explains that at the core of black liberation theology is an effort — in a white-dominated society, in which black has been defined as evil — to make the gospel relevant to the life and struggles of American blacks, and to help black people learn to love themselves. It's an attempt, he says "to teach people how to be both unapologetically black and Christian at the same time.


"There is more on the <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116">NPR</a> page. Cone's books include Black Theology and Black PowerGod of the Oppressed, and Risks of Faith. He teaches at Manhattan's Union Theological Seminary.

"Let me digress for a moment. I was one of two delegates from the Greater Buffalo, NY area to the New Politics convention during the Vietnam War. We both were white and among the first to respond positively to the call for "Black Power". As I look back to my naive views at that time I wonder how it could seem so obvious that it was the right thing to do. As a further aside, here's what the husband of our County Democratic Committee Chair just said about me because I was critical of her leadership in our congressional district. (I committed the sin of wanting to run a democratic candidate against a republican Bush rubber stamp in congress):


Quote:
Your rantings have reduced
your stature to that of a confused and bitter old man..........
Your contribution to our discussions seems to be
limited to complaining about how and why things are done locally or
about some global conspiracy. (If I had a dollar for every time you
uttered "neocon"...)


"I go into this this because at 72, I think I have some things to contribute. The experience at the New Politics convention is but one. I find the response of this recent college graduate the kind of put down that the critics of Reverend Wright are using. Why must political conversation degenerate to this level? You see, the New Politics convention was a long time ago. Back then my crystal ball was telling me that by this time such issues would be long dead. Yet here we are in the middle of a sickening misunderstanding of the words of a brilliant preacher. Why do people seek to destroy the teachings of wise men? Why do we have to go over these things again and again? Maybe it is my age, but I am sick and tired of it. When will we determine our political leadership using our reasoning powers? I don't have a lot of time left. Give me some reason to hope please."




White Power Conservatives are trying desperately to keep this fear-mongering issue alive (as per the usual with them) but poll after poll (FORTUNATELY) shows that most voters believe Obama has handled the Reverend Wright issue maturely and with admirable aplomb. Perhaps the Conservative fear-mongering machine is finally waning, and there may actually be hope for the future of this great Country, free from the callous hands of the bitter Conservative menace.


Tue May 06, 2008 1:42 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
None of that explains the bit about the "God for us and against the white people".

I really wish he elaborated a bit on the biblical context. "Everybody knows" (or in this case, "community knows") is a horseshit statement.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Tue May 06, 2008 4:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Minneapolis
Post 
Nothing in that post did anything to refute the basic facts. They are:

Obama attended Trinity Church of Christ for 20+ years.
Trinity is a Church openly based on Black Liberation theology.
Black Liberation theology is considered by many to be a racist offshoot from mainstream Christianity.

Personally, I think all the focus on Wright is misplaced - I don't give a rats ass about Wright. What I do care about is whether Obama himself believes in the teachings of Black Liberation theology. If he does, I find that to be a big problem for a potential President.

So why would Obama be a member of Trinity church if he didn't believe in the theology being taught there? Catholics typically don't go to Lutheran churches, Baptists typically don't go to Mormon churches, etc. Unless someone can make a reasonable argument to the contrary, the most obvious reason Obama went to a Black Liberation church for over 20 years is that he believes in their teachings.

Personally, I have a problem with that. Everyone else can make up their own minds.

_________________
Its all because of the Humans...


Tue May 06, 2008 7:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
Woah, thank you all for informing us about this bizzare cult like theology, scary stuff!

I just hope people make thier own decisions & find out for themselves what the truth is about Obama, Rev. Wright & his beliefs. But in any case, it certainly should be researched & questioned.
Here is a google search to get started!

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=rev ... a=N&tab=wn


Tue May 06, 2008 7:49 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
A.) I'm not voting for Wright, I'm voting for Obama. This is a non-issue.
B.) I know a number of people (and have known them for years and years) who, in my opinion, have "questionable belief systems." (Hell, some of them are Intelligent Design Conservatives - the worst breed since the Nazis). That does'nt mean I am a believer in "Intelligent Design," Conservatism, stupidity (same thing) or Nazi-ism.
C.) This is just another inane tactic of Conservative race-baiters to steer the debate away from the fact that Obama would, most likely, be a better leader than anyone they've ever seen in their lifetimes (and, unfortunately, he's not a Conservative piece of shit ready to sell out the working class).
D.) It's great because it means they know they can't win in an issues-oriented debate.
E.) My Grandfather hated "Niggers." My Grandfather also served in the Navy and fought on the front lines of the Normandy invasion. Omaha beach. One of the bloodiest battles in history. He fought for freedom. He fought for the sovereignty of our Country and the freedom of other countries as well. The small minded would argue "Well, he was the product of a certain age..." Rev. Wright was also a Marine. He served America. He is as old as white power maestro and American sellout Dick Cheney. He comes from a different age. An age that was forced to deal with a type of racism of which YOU can't even fathom. His perceptions and philosophies are a product of that. Barack Obama is NOT Reverend Wright. He is a product of a poor, working class household. He is a product of struggle. He is born of the realities of both the white and the black races. Growing up I was subjected to the questionable philosophies of a number of people and organizations, including a racist Catholic school. At thirty-five years of age I am neither racist, nor Catholic/Christian. This is a non-issue specifically because it's the incredibly pitiful attempt to discredit someone based on guilt by association. It's the sort of tactic used by the small minded, the desperate, the opponent who knows he cannot win and is willing to latch on to any disgusting thing he can to somehow smear his idealogical enemy. It's everything about politics that is repugnant to the rationally minded individual. And yet, Obama manages to transcend it all. He will win because Americans have finally grown weary of the Conservative politics of fear. Eventually it was bound to happen, otherwise we would be facing destruction. Conservatism has certainly tarnished the legacy of America but we have finally realized that it's time to reassert ourselves in a way befitting a "Sovereign Nation" that still possesses some modicum of dignity and respect. Hopefully we aren't too late.


Tue May 06, 2008 11:53 pm
Profile
Post 
devil wrote:
He will win because Americans have finally grown weary of the Conservative politics of fear.


I dunno. The Repubs could still take the throne, no matter how pissed off the majority of voting Americans are. Hell, they did it the last TWO Presidential elections, even after losing the popular vote both times.

That's just what we need... a third Bush term, disguised as McCain. That way we can stay in Iraq for another 100 years (McCain said that'd be fine with him), and keep looking for them WMDs. But we can forget about that one guy.... Bin--? Bin-something....?? Whoever he was, he's not important. What's important is that we keep extremists out of office, like black people. Because they must hate America, and our freedoms... which makes them TERRORISTS, right?


Wed May 07, 2008 12:20 am
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
Keep Americans afraid and the Conservatives will win. Liberate their minds from the Politics of exclusion and fear and we may be able to win back the strength our Nation once had. The rich and powerful had their heyday, now it's our turn.


Wed May 07, 2008 12:50 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
devil wrote:
A.) And yet, Obama manages to transcend it all. .


Well, the jury is still out on that one! After all... he sure loved the Rev. till he found him to be political baggage.
Perhaps you should start your own thread about how great Obama is? There is a discussion going on here about Religon & America. It's in the news, whats the big whoop?


Wed May 07, 2008 12:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 701
Location: the rotted glory of minneapolis suburbia
Post 
I'm not voting for Wright, so I don't give two shits about what dogmatic fear-mongering crap he's spewing. One's religious affiliation does not factor in to my consideration of someone as a presidential candidate. I don't believe one's religious views should effect their political behavior.
It's ridiculous to invalidate someone as a candidate because of the religious beliefs of someone they know. If you're going to argue against Obama, argue against one of his platforms that you actually disagree with; instead of throwing up straw men. I have hayfever.

_________________
Art is life. But life is not art.


Wed May 07, 2008 1:41 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
Aaaand Obama wins. Natch. Common sense prevails.


Wed May 07, 2008 1:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2380
Location: Ehr. well. Im not a local
Post 
devil wrote:
Common sense prevails.


Barely.


And it was just barely beat out in Indiana, common sense *almost* won. I feel so optimistic.
I think the Wright issue will finally be laid to rest, more or less, now that people still know that Obama can still win even after being drawn and quartered. They'll abandon this attack in favor of something else. Maybe they'll find secret correspondence between Obama and Tehran.

(edited for grammar purposes)

_________________
Mind crunching rage.


Wed May 07, 2008 7:17 am
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
manna_panna wrote:
I don't believe one's religious views should effect their political behavior.
Trouble is, their behavior is affected by their religion. See Bush II. Your belief is an ideal that does not exist in reality.


manna_panna wrote:
It's ridiculous to invalidate someone as a candidate because of the religious beliefs of someone they know. If you're going to argue against Obama, argue against one of his platforms that you actually disagree with; instead of throwing up straw men. I have hayfever.
I have not seen a straw man argument here. Unless your definition of straw man differs from the common one, I think you are incorrect.

I would say there is quite a bit of difference between "someone you know" and "someone whose church you attend for 20 years". I'm guessing you are not a church regular, and this is quite likely why you don't understand this. A preacher is an authority figure, not just some guy with a pulpit.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Wed May 07, 2008 1:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
Nemphusi wrote:

And it was just barely beat out in Indiana, common sense *almost* won. I feel so optimistic.
I think the Wright issue will finally be laid to rest, more or less, now that people still know that Obama can still win even after being drawn and quartered. They'll abandon this attack in favor of something else. Maybe they'll find secret correspondence between Obama and Tehran.

(edited for grammar purposes)
I found reason enough to dislike Obama after reading his campaign website.

Besides, he is a Chicago politician, and that in itself speaks volumes.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Wed May 07, 2008 1:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 701
Location: the rotted glory of minneapolis suburbia
Post 
JPaganel wrote:
Trouble is, their behavior is affected by their religion. See Bush II. Your belief is an ideal that does not exist in reality.

I know this. I know that it is *impossible* to hope that people would make decisions based on the logical factors of a problem rather than use faith as an excuse for what they think. But I put my support behind someone I think who would do it <i>the least</i>

JPaganel wrote:
I have not seen a straw man argument here. Unless your definition of straw man differs from the common one, I think you are incorrect.

Here's the definition I'm thinking--of which looks pretty common to me--with my comments in parentheses:
From Wiki: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
Or from drury.edu (Missouri University): "Straw Man occurs when:
an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary (republicans quote Wright's theology)
and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument; (quotes are made out of context and the fear-mongering begins)
[then] "knocks down" the straw man version of the argument, because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc. (republicans badmouth Wright and ridicule Obama for the apparent sin of ever associating with Wright)
-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument." (Obama's reputation is damaged by proxy)
Do I need to draw a picture?

JPaganel wrote:
I would say there is quite a bit of difference between "someone you know" and "someone whose church you attend for 20 years". I'm guessing you are not a church regular, and this is quite likely why you don't understand this. A preacher is an authority figure, not just some guy with a pulpit.

I believe you're trying to make some sort of inflammatory remark by assuming what I do and do not understand about religion, church and Christianity. And as arguing this point does not relate to the topic or our contention about the topic, I'm going to let it slide.

_________________
Art is life. But life is not art.


Wed May 07, 2008 2:51 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post 
manna_panna wrote:
I know that it is *impossible* to hope that people would make decisions based on the logical factors of a problem rather than use faith as an excuse for what they think. But I put my support behind someone I think who would do it <i>the least</i>


that would technically be mccaine...

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Wed May 07, 2008 3:22 pm
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
Frost wrote:
...That way we can stay in Iraq for another 100 years (McCain said that'd be fine with him)


He didn't say that a hundred more years of war in Iraq would be "fine with him", he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea. The "100 years" quote came from a town hall meeting in New Hampshire where a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years:

Crowd member: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years...

McCain: Make it a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM


Wed May 07, 2008 3:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
manna_panna wrote:
I know this. I know that it is *impossible* to hope that people would make decisions based on the logical factors of a problem rather than use faith as an excuse for what they think. But I put my support behind someone I think who would do it <i>the least</i>
Such optimism...

manna_panna wrote:
Here's the definition I'm thinking--of which looks pretty common to me--with my comments in parentheses:
From Wiki: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
Or from drury.edu (Missouri University): "Straw Man occurs when:
an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary (republicans quote Wright's theology)
and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument; (quotes are made out of context and the fear-mongering begins)
[then] "knocks down" the straw man version of the argument, because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc. (republicans badmouth Wright and ridicule Obama for the apparent sin of ever associating with Wright)
-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument." (Obama's reputation is damaged by proxy)
Do I need to draw a picture?
Yes, please do draw a picture. I would agree that a close imitation of an original argument is being offered, if somebody would explain how it's different from the original. All I see is lots of handwringing about being misunderstood. What exactly is this elusive context? I also do not see a successful counter to the argument. Maybe I am missing something.

manna_panna wrote:
I believe you're trying to make some sort of inflammatory remark by assuming what I do and do not understand about religion, church and Christianity. And as arguing this point does not relate to the topic or our contention about the topic, I'm going to let it slide.
Believe what you will. I said what I meant and I meant what I said: I think the expression you chose assigns less importance to the relationship than there is in my experience. I based my remark on your choice of words and nothing else, since I can't read your mind and don't know the story of your life. If you think that having an opinion different from yours somehow insults you, there is nothing I can do.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Wed May 07, 2008 4:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
Mccain would definatly guarantee grid lock, oh well!

This Black Liberation Theology (BLT) almost sounds like some kind of radical Islam.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be shocked by this BLT stuff.


Wed May 07, 2008 6:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Minneapolis
Post 
I'd recommend that both sides of this debate not focus so much on Rev Wright. He's not the one running for office. His importance in the conversation is that his sermons are evidence of the belief system being taught at Trinity church. Wright's personal opinions are secondary to the main issue. That being the theology that appears to be the basis of Obama's religious belief system.

I only see two arguments that can be made that would eliminate this as an issue:

1) Obama doesn't actually believe in Black Liberation Theology. This would require a plausible explanation as to why he attended a Black Liberation church for 20 years if he didn't actually believe it's teachings.

2) Black Liberation theology is being grossly misrepresented, is not based on racism, and is a perfectly normal Christian sect. This would be a tough sell to make since there is a wealth of published evidence as to what the theology actually is.

There will be arguments made that black racism isn't the same as white, that it should be tolerated or ignored, etc. Thats fine, but thats a personal opinion that won't make the issue go away. Some people will simply hold to the belief that a tolerance of racism in any form doesn't belong in the White House.

_________________
Its all because of the Humans...


Wed May 07, 2008 6:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
2fisted wrote:
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be shocked by this BLT stuff.


ImageImage


Wed May 07, 2008 6:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 4274
Location: pyramids of mars
Post 
JeffAlso wrote:
... is a perfectly normal Christian sect.


no such animal exists. While not all Christians are whacko, Christianity is a bizarre sect, in and of itself. Death worship, the afterlife, a big beard in the sky, re-writing the rules, demonic possession, angels, pillars of salt, circumcision, changing rules, human sacrifice...

again, another reason I refuse to vote mainstream Democrat.

_________________
Rockula! wrote:
Whooda thought that you could get supress a guy's urge kick someones ass by waving pussy in his face?


Wed May 07, 2008 8:54 pm
Profile YIM
Post 
McCain wrote:
We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.


We weren't supposed to be in Iraq in the first place. We have no single valid, factual reason for invading that country. And I don't think we really need to keep our WWII relics in Japan or Germany anymore, either.


Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
JPaganel wrote:
I would say there is quite a bit of difference between "someone you know" and "someone whose church you attend for 20 years". I'm guessing you are not a church regular, and this is quite likely why you don't understand this. A preacher is an authority figure, not just some guy with a pulpit.


I don't think you understand either, as you apparently aren't a church regular. Otherwise you would know that churchgoers do NOT follow lockstep with everything their Priest/Pastor/Deacon/Preacher says. At all. Oh sure, there are the ruthlessly devout, but they make up a rather small portion of the congregation and are typically looked down upon in the manner an "ass-kisser" would be. It isn't the Fourth Reich. I was raised Roman Catholic. I belonged to three churches in my lifetime. I had all the Sacraments except marriage, anointing of the sick and holy orders (duh). Most every parishioner would listen to the Bible versus and occasionally find powerpoints in a sermon, but would also typically believe the Priest/Pastor/Deacon/Preacher was full of shit in the same way a Politician is.

I was very good friends with one of my Priests. He was eager to ensure I would recieve the holy orders. He was seriously campaigning for me to become a priest because I had a strong knowledge of Theology and I was a gifted public speaker. However I let it be known that I had a lot of disagreements with church dogma and the way the bible was interpreted. I had my own views. I didn't follow lock step with everything this Priest preached. It irked him. But I liked the guy. I enjoyed spending time with him. I thought he was a nice guy even though he was very much opposed to things like abortion and homosexuality based on the superstitious writings of biblical authors. I always argued that I just couldn't buy into the "divinely inspired" line and that there just wasn't any way you could take everything in the bible as "the word of God," especially since there was so much contradiction in the existing texts as well as apocryphal literature. We had our disagreements and debates. There were many issues in which we were on opposing sides.

So what?

The reason why this issue means absolutely nothing is because we are not voting for Reverend Wright. Why some people can't get that through their skull I only marginally understand. I say that because I know people who will only associate with others that believe exactly as they do about everything. In other words, they have no friends. I've been influenced by a great number of people who could be considered "questionable" when held under scrutiny (I don't believe I've ever met anyone who wouldn't be considered "questionable" under scrutiny in the eyes of the mainstream), but to dismiss a candidate because of the people he knows is beyond ridiculous. Obama has openly stated how he feels about the issues people find "questionable." It's over. There's nothing to pursue here. If this is the biggest issue people can come up with to derail an Obama candidacy, not only is he going to win the Presidency in a landslide he may very well become the greatest leader in my lifetime.


Last edited by devil on Thu May 08, 2008 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed May 07, 2008 11:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
JeffAlso wrote:
1) Obama doesn't actually believe in Black Liberation Theology. This would require a plausible explanation as to why he attended a Black Liberation church for 20 years if he didn't actually believe it's teachings.


Again, read above. You're assuming that ALL THEY TALK ABOUT in Reverend Wright's Church is "Black Theology," which you seem to interpret as near constant Black-against-White talk. You are a fear-mongerer. You are a Conservative. This train of thought is typical of your ilk since, listening to Talk Radio, that's all you hear. Constant us-against-them talk. Churches are a different matter. They talk about Christ and his examples. This BLT stuff is rather peripheral and isn't interjected into every-single-sermon. Considering he's of mixed race to begin with, trying to call out Obama for being anti-White is borderline retarded.

Sometimes I really wonder if Conservatives actually possess the "common sense" they're always talking about.


Wed May 07, 2008 11:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4925
Location: S St Paul
Post 
To put it another way, who do you think has more influence/relevance: a guy's pastor, or his father?

Okay, now let's take a close look at how close YOUR opinions and attitudes match those of YOUR father's.

THEN tell me how pertinent you think Reverend Crazypants' views of the world are to Obama's candidacy.


But on the other hand, this thread started as a statement about his choice of religion and its doctrines, not his relationship with his pastor.
A person's choice of religion (especially if they weren't born+brainwashed into it) is definitely something they ought to be held accountable for.

But really, are there ANY candidates that don't subscribe to some crackpot religion or another? BLT's principles don't strike me as being any more worrisome than most of the OTHER random crazy sh1t that religions deem sacred/just/holy.


Wed May 07, 2008 11:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Minneapolis
Post 
Why is it that a discussion of a hot political topic, in a political forum, has to devolve into personal attacks and comparisons to the KKK and Nazis?

*sigh*

_________________
Its all because of the Humans...


Thu May 08, 2008 12:45 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
JeffAlso wrote:
Why is it that a discussion of a hot political topic, in a political forum, has to devolve into personal attacks and comparisons to the KKK and Nazis?

*sigh*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Thu May 08, 2008 12:55 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post 
fuck the kkk.

fuck nazis.

fuck republicans.

fuck democrats.


SAMMICHES!

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Thu May 08, 2008 1:05 am
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 5056
Post 
Yeah. God forbid we should call a spade a spade.

Before the Nazis took power in Germany, conservative Christians were actively engaged in defending German Christian culture against the dangers of modernism, secularism, and communism. They insisted that Christianity be the basis for politics and culture; moreover, they were determined to protect society from anti-Christian influences. Does this sound familiar?

In <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/LogicOfEvil.htm">The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party</a>, 1925-1933, William Brustein writes:

The principal raison d’etre of the Center Party was the defense of the Catholic religion in Germany. To this end the Center Party participated in government to ensure religious freedom, basic religious instruction in all schools, financial aid for parochial schools, and the preservation and strengthening of Christian culture and ideals in community life. According to the Center Party’s program, Christianity should be the basis for state, society, and culture, and German economic and social policy should moreover embody a Christian social spirit. ...

Center Party leaders also found themselves embroiled in debates over and pornography. The party marshaled its resources to halt all government efforts to facilitate divorce. The party’s leadership equated laws facilitating divorce with the advent of bolshevism in Germany and the end of German Christianity and civilized culture. The Center Party threatened to quit the governing coalition if the government enacted a divorce reform law. In November 1926 the Center Party submitted a bill to the Reichstag for the protection of youth from pornographic literature (Schund- und Schmutzgesetz). The bill won Reichstag approval despite opposition from the Social Democratic and German Democratic deputies.


It appears that many of the basic policies and beliefs of the Catholic Center Party of pre-Nazi Germany would find fertile ground and a welcome reception in modern America. Of course, it’s worth noting that these policies and beliefs not only did nothing to prevent the Nazi takeover of Germany, but in fact helped facilitate it because they helped push agendas and ideas which the Nazis themselves were able to use with such effectiveness.

The Nazis didn’t run as anti-Christian, but as more Christian than everyone else. They, too, adopted positions attacking homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. They, too, insisted that Germany’s Christian culture needed to be fostered and protected. Christians like those in the Catholic Center Party helped pave the way for Nazism. Is there any danger that conservative Christians in modern America might end up doing something similar?


So cry "Godwinism" all you like. The fact remains that the Fourth Reich is alive and well and solely embodied by modern American Conservatism.


Thu May 08, 2008 1:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
I don't think Obama believes every thing that his pastor preached to him for 20 years, I think the real question for Obama is why he felt like he had to lie about his relations w/ him.
Who realy is this Obama guy anyway? He's praised & glorified by NPR & the rest of the lefty media machine, what has he done? %70 of his political life he has done nothing but run for prez.


Thu May 08, 2008 9:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
devil wrote:
The fact remains that the Fourth Reich is alive and well and solely embodied by modern American Conservatism.
That is not a fact. That is your opinion. (I'm tempted to make a snide remark about being able to tell the difference here) The quote you posted is not conclusive proof.

In the same vein, the Wehrmacht belt buckles were inscribed "Gott mit uns", which means "God is with us" . Hey, didn't we see that phrase just a bit earlier in this thread?

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Thu May 08, 2008 11:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
How about Insane McCain's love affair with assholes like Parsley and Hagee?

If you're really concerned about this shit, read and watch what these hate-filled jackasses have to say:

Mc Walking Cane's problems


Thu May 08, 2008 2:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
Thx zom! Good to see that the both of them at least like America & don't trash it. Mccain won't have any probs cuz he has been up front about his relations. Unlike Obama who was evasive & weak about Rev Wright.

Lot more to learn...


Thu May 08, 2008 11:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4925
Location: S St Paul
Post 
2fisted wrote:
I don't think Obama believes every thing that his pastor preached to him for 20 years, I think the real question for Obama is why he felt like he had to lie about his relations w/ him.

2fisted wrote:
... Unlike Obama who was evasive & weak about Rev Wright.

Oh, Come, On. Are you just making sh1t up now? I saw most of the speech he gave about the subject, and "evasive & weak" is the exact opposite of the impression it gave me. Very much NOT a typical politician, who you'd normally expect to distance himself and deny everything at the first sign of controversy.

And if you're gonna post lies about Obama lying, the least you could do is include a link to some lying website that lies about him lying, so we'd know YOU didn't fabricate the lie all by yourself.

It would be "cliche' neocon" to lambast him for associating with Rev.Wright, or to lambast him for denying that he associated with Rev.Wright... but lambasting him for the second thing when he came right out and said the first thing makes it look like you're playing MadLibs with neocon buzzwords instead of actually watching the news.

I'm not an Obama fanboy, but geez, if you're gonna criticize somebody, try to find some credible criticisms!


Fri May 09, 2008 2:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
zom-zom wrote:
How about Insane McCain's love affair with assholes like Parsley and Hagee?

If you're really concerned about this shit, read and watch what these hate-filled jackasses have to say:

Mc Walking Cane's problems
I'm not really concerned about Obama and Wright. Like I said, I have other reasons to dislike Obama, and as someone correctly noted, we wouldn't be voting for Wright. I do find this Black Liberation Theology thing somewhat interesting, especially in the way all these white people are trying to explain it.

If you are talking about my Nazi comparison, that's not why I said it.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Fri May 09, 2008 9:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
2fisted wrote:
Thx zom! Good to see that the both of them at least like America & don't trash it. Mccain won't have any probs cuz he has been up front about his relations. Unlike Obama who was evasive & weak about Rev Wright.

Lot more to learn...
If "liking America" is your criterion, you should be a-ok with Wright. He liked it enough to spend some time in the Marines.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Fri May 09, 2008 9:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
rskm1 wrote:
And if you're gonna post lies about Obama lying, the least you could do is include a link to some lying website that lies about him lying, so we'd know YOU didn't fabricate the lie all by yourself!


ok OK! I'm trying to stay on topic here, but zom has forced me to talk about politics! Here is an accurate artical from the deciesed great William f Buckley web site. When Obama couldn't sweep Rev. wright under the rug, he threw him under the bus instead!

Quote:
March 17, 2008 5:00 AM

The Wright Questions
What did Obama hear, and when did he hear it?


By Peter Wehner

A few thoughts on the widely played excerpts from the sermons of Barack Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago:

1. This is the worst crisis the Obama campaign has faced. It has done deep and perhaps long-term damage by calling into question the judgment and credibility of the junior senator from Illinois. And it badly undermines Obama’s claim that he is a figure who can bind up America’s racial wounds.

2. Senator Obama, whose campaign only last year said that he was “proud of his pastor and his church,” is now saying that he wasn’t aware of the angry, reckless, anti-American, and racially divisive comments by Reverend Wright. But that claim stretches credulity. Reverend Wright, after all, is not a stranger who is offering up a presidential-year endorsement. Wright has instead played a pivotal role in Obama’s life — including marrying Barack and Michelle Obama, baptizing their two children, and inspiring the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope.

Senator Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since the early 1990s. Are we supposed to believe that the kind of venom and vivid hatred that we have all seen on display — that God should damn rather than bless America, that this country created AIDS in an effort to foster genocide, that we had 9/11 coming to us, that America is the “U.S. of K.K.K.A.” and that Israel is a terrorist state — is an anomaly for Wright? That the overwhelming majority of his sermons are expositions on the love of Christ and the need to break down the dividing walls between us? That Obama was utterly shocked to see Wright’s words strung together on cable TV? That he has seen a side of Wright in the last week that he never knew existed?

This is a pastor, after all, who traveled to Libya in 1984 to visit Muammar Qadhafi with Louis Farrakhan and presented a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan only last year, calling the Nation of Islam leader a man of “integrity and honesty” and referring to him as “one of the 20th and 21st century greats of the African-American religious experience.”

The odds are a good deal better than even that Wright’s hatred is on regular or semi-regular display at the pulpit of Trinity United. The question now becomes: What did Senator Obama hear, and when did he hear it?

3. Reverend Wright’s toxic comments may help us better understand the remarks by Michelle Obama that she is proud of America for the first time in her adult life only now that her husband is running for president and that she considers America to be a “outright mean” nation.

If someone admires Reverend Wright as much as Michelle Obama seems to — and she has spoken very well of him in the past — then it’s reasonable to assume that they share some common values. People who attend the same church for a quarter century often share key attitudes and outlooks of their minister. That’s not always the case — but it’s more often the case than not. And it is very rare that people who attend a church for more than 25 years hold views that are fundamentally at odds with their pastor.

It sounds like clashing cymbals to hear Obama’s rhetoric — at once calm, reasonable, and unifying — and then to hear the comments of two people who play among the most important roles in his life: his wife and his minister. People are right to wonder: What the heck is going on here? Did Obama embrace Wright and his church in an effort to gain legitimacy during his Chicago years — and now wants to jettison Wright and his church in an effort to gain legitimacy during his run for the White House?

4. Senator Obama and some of his supporters have made the plea that he not be made “guilty by association.” What people are asking for is not guilt but responsibility by association — especially an association this long, this deep, this important.

And on the matter of “guilt by association,” here’s a thought experiment. Assume that the spiritual leader and pastor of the church George W. Bush or John McCain attended was, say, a white supremacist or an anti-gay bigot. Do you think that there would be any hesitancy among the press to push the “guilt by association” storyline? I rather doubt it.

I ask because on Thursday CNN’s Anderson Cooper and some of his commentators were visibly unhappy that they were forced to spend valuable time talking about the Wright issue rather than, say, health care or education policy. Anderson and the others clearly viewed it as distasteful and a distraction from a full airing of policy issues. (To Cooper’s credit, by Friday he had changed his tune and was making the case for why the story was relevant.)

5. We actually have an example of how the MSM plays the “guilt by association” card when it comes to certain political and religious figures. In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush spoke once at Bob Jones University; it was an event used to bludgeon Bush with for the rest of the campaign and into his presidency. And, of course, Bush did not attend Bob Jones University, financially support it, or consider Bob Jones to be his spiritual mentor or close friend for 25 years. Yet these things mattered not at all. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University — and so to many in the press, he was joined at the hip with it. The association between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama is far deeper in every respect.

Until now Barack Obama has run a remarkable campaign and has shown himself to be a man of apparent grace and class, an apostle of hope and unity. But recent events are starting to eat away at the image of Obama. Nothing has done more damage to him, however, than the comments of his pastor Jeremiah Wright. What Obama has said by way of explanation is neither reassuring nor persuasive — and before this story plays itself out, much more damage to the reputation of Barack Obama may be done.

The words of Jeremiah Wright are acidic — both in their own right and in what they are doing to the Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. For his next sermon Reverend Wright might consider meditating on the words of James: “the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.” To these words Senator Obama may simply say, Amen.

— Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


This is not about Mccain imo, he has other issues to explain... but cmon zom, you arent going to defend this biggot Wright are you?


Fri May 09, 2008 9:37 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
JPaganel wrote:
2fisted wrote:
Thx zom! Good to see that the both of them at least like America & don't trash it. Mccain won't have any probs cuz he has been up front about his relations. Unlike Obama who was evasive & weak about Rev Wright.

Lot more to learn...
If "liking America" is your criterion, you should be a-ok with Wright. He liked it enough to spend some time in the Marines.


Mby he did way back when? Mby he does now that he ownes a 1.5 million $ house next to a golf course? But he sure don't preach it now!


Fri May 09, 2008 9:42 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
Peter Wehner wrote:
And on the matter of “guilt by association,” here’s a thought experiment. Assume that the spiritual leader and pastor of the church George W. Bush or John McCain attended was, say, a white supremacist or an anti-gay bigot. Do you think that there would be any hesitancy among darktwincities moderators to push the “guilt by association” storyline? I rather doubt it.


Fri May 09, 2008 10:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
Fuck it, I don't like America that much really. Not these days.

But at least I'm not trying to ruin it like Chimpy and his pals, I just live here, pay taxes, work hard. I could do that in Canada or lots of other countries.


Fri May 09, 2008 2:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4925
Location: S St Paul
Post 
2fisted wrote:
rskm1 wrote:
And if you're gonna post lies about Obama lying, the least you could do is include a link to some lying website that lies about him lying, so we'd know YOU didn't fabricate the lie all by yourself!


ok OK! I'm trying to stay on topic here, but zom has forced me to talk about politics! Here is an accurate artical from the deciesed great William f Buckley web site. When Obama couldn't sweep Rev. wright under the rug, he threw him under the bus instead!

Quote:
March 17, 2008 5:00 AM

The Wright Questions
What did Obama hear, and when did he hear it?


By Peter Wehner

[snip]

2. Senator Obama, whose campaign only last year said that he was “proud of his pastor and his church,” is now saying that he wasn’t aware of the angry, reckless, anti-American, and racially divisive comments by Reverend Wright.

[snip]

That's not a quote from Obama.
That's not even a misquote of Obama.
That's a misparaphrase of Obama!

When, and to whom, did Obama ever claim he "wasn't aware ..."?


Fri May 09, 2008 2:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
Don't confuse fisty with "facts".


Fri May 09, 2008 2:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/2 ... ama-oprah/

Oprah had the sense to go some place else, why didn't Obama?

Quote:
Fuck it, I don't like America that much really. Not these days.

But at least I'm not trying to ruin it like Chimpy and his pals, I just live here, pay taxes, work hard. I could do that in Canada or lots of other countries.


What about all that "Hope" & "Change" Obama wants to give you? You gonna move out of the U.S. if Mccain wins?

London is looking good these days!


Fri May 09, 2008 6:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:50 pm
Posts: 1652
Location: Winona, MN
Post 
If people are going to go on and on about the Trinity Church, it might be a good idea to look into what UCC churches are all about, as well as what "liberation theology" is all about. UCC churches are structured to be non-hierarchical, non-judgemental, non-dogmatic entities. They are more accepting of gays and people of other faiths than any other denomination, based in that they are structured to let the individual decide for themself what to take from the Bible and God. Pastors play a secondary role, and don't so much spit dogma, as merely lead prayers and sermons. There is even a policy of keeping pulpits as low to the ground as possible, to assert that the congregation members are just as important as the minister. If ministers are not liked, they can be removed by popular vote, and a new one voted in.
Liberation theology largely came into being in the 80s, in places like central America, where catholic priests encouraged independence movements, against military tyrants. Pope John Paul II (in one of his characteristically bastard moves), put down this movement among his priests, but it is still a recognized train of thought among many denominations and clergy, in that involves clergy helping to support oppressed people in their struggles against unfair power strutcures.
Having been raised in the UCC faith, and having studied liberation theologies, I thought I'd add some background.


Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:52 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post 
Haakon wrote:
If people are going to go on and on about the Trinity Church, it might be a good idea to look into what UCC churches are all about, as well as what "liberation theology" is all about. UCC churches are structured to be non-hierarchical, non-judgemental, non-dogmatic entities. <<snip>>
Having been raised in the UCC faith, and having studied liberation theologies, I thought I'd add some background.



Thank you for that post! Well said.

I am just getting into this discussion now... fun thread...

I only have one thing to add to this discussion. People are not carbon copies of their pastor/preacher/priest/minister/etc. I went to Catholic church my whole life and it's safe to say that my entire family does not accept EVERYTHING they are told in church blindly. I know I didn't (when I was Catholic). Lots of people go to church with the attitude of "I take what I want, and I leave the rest". It is unfair to completely judge someone based on someone else, be it religious leader or not. Those associations may beg that questions be raised, but in the case of Obama I feel they have been raised and he addressed them. Now it's time to take his word at it and move on. His religion is his business, and frankly everything I've heard him say and everything I've read by him has always been a message of unity- not division. I have no reason to believe he hates whitey or has some black power agenda. That's just silly.

~Ether~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:36 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post 
Exactly, just because Ether molests altar boys doesn't mean it happened to him at his church

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
Ether wrote:
People are not carbon copies of their pastor/preacher/priest/minister/etc. I went to Catholic church my whole life and it's safe to say that my entire family does not accept EVERYTHING they are told in church blindly. I know I didn't (when I was Catholic).
That's fair. I don't really understand it, though. I used to go to a church where the priest was a massive prick (note to altar boys - "was", not "had"). Once his prickness became apparent, I left.

Maybe it's a special kind of masochism.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post 
Ether wrote:
I have no reason to believe he hates whitey or has some black power agenda. That's just silly.

~Ether~


Nor I, (I do think he is extreemly divisive) but he seems to be ready to throw his priest of 20 years under the bus for political expediency. He is acting more & more like a typical "wet finger in the air politician".

Just ask Nader bout that:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... a-try.html


Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4925
Location: S St Paul
Post 
2fisted wrote:
Nor I, (I do think he is extreemly divisive) but he seems to be ready to throw his priest of 20 years under the bus for political expediency. He is acting more & more like a typical "wet finger in the air politician".

Just ask Nader bout that

Or, just ask a sweaty gym sock about it, because its opinion would be equally relevant.

Hey, how's about a link to SOMETHING THAT OBAMA SAID that would make your claims of him "seeming ready to throw his priest [..] under the bus for political expediency" less laughably ridiculous?


Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
Fisty's picked up This Month's Favourite Conservative Line. Just like The Borg, they all think and talk the same:


"Throwing_____Under The Bus".

What the fuck does that mean anyways?

Is it Crazy McInsane's "All Talk Express"?


Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
zom-zom's picked up This Month's Favourite Liberal Word. Just like The Borg, they all think and talk the same:


"McInsane"


Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
zom-zom wrote:
"Throwing_____Under The Bus".

What the fuck does that mean anyways?


Ever done a Google search? It's pretty easy:

Throw grandma under the bus

When seeking to extricate himself from the tight spot in which he has been placed by his long association with the spiritual leadership of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama hauled in his (living) maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. Obama has previously characterized Mrs. Dunham as a "trailblazer of sorts, the first woman vice-president of a local bank." She had a direct hand in his upbringing when Obama chose to live with his maternal grandparents rather than his mother, who was then in Indonesia. Today Obama brought Mrs. Dunham into his speech for a cameo appearance as a white counterpart to the fulsome Reverend Wright:

"I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Even amid the false equivalencies and obvious evasions of his speech today, Obama's misuse of his grandmother seems to me a striking sign of poor character.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 020072.php


Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
I started using McInsane before I ever read it anywhere. I'm glad my funny and accurate name for the nutcase became popular.


And puh-leeeeze.. "powerline blog"? That's some real shit right there.

Go assimilate with your pals.


Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:43 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
You wanted to know where the "under the bus" quote came from and that was simply the first one to come up on my search that explained it. Look for yourself. I had no idea what kind of website it was so it seems you know them better than me.


Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post 
That doesn't explain throwing anything under a bus. Why a bus? Why throwing things under it?

That did not explain anything.


Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2488
Post 
zom-zom wrote:
"Throwing_____Under The Bus".

What the fuck does that mean anyways?


I assumed you understood what throwing someone under a bus meant and would be able to put the two together.

To throw _____ under the bus

To sacrifice some other person, usually one who is undeserving or at least vulnerable, to make personal gain.

Example: "He'd throw his mother under the bus if it'd mean he could beat the rap."

Or: "Barack Obama has thrown is grandmother under the bus for his own personal gain."

I hope that helps.


Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:54 pm
Posts: 476
Post 
zom-zom wrote:
I started using McInsane before I ever read it anywhere. I'm glad my funny and accurate name for the nutcase became popular.
It's not nearly as funny as you think it is. Or perhaps it's just that I am long past the 3rd grade.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't even have thought that funny back then, if only because "insane" is a full syllable longer than "Cain" and therefore sounds unlike it enough for the derisive name to not even make sense, let alone be clever.

_________________
Squirrels make such angry drunks - (C) Petey


Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:13 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 126 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.