Just for you Jedd:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

You can't pick what your husband does when he's alone with an intern or whether he hires a hooker or not, but you can control who your pastor is.

Just for you Jedd:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1



You can't pick what your husband does when he's alone with an intern or whether he hires a hooker or not, but you can control who your pastor is.

The funny thing is Akipt... I agree with every thing his pastor said... So it wouldn't change my opinion of Obama... And unlike McCain, this guy isn't Obama's Advisor.

Like Obama says... It is time for a change

now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards
You disagree with this statement Akipt?

The rest of the world has understood and would agree with everything you quoted, why haven't U.S. citizens?

/boggle


Cheers,

You disagree with this statement Akipt?

The rest of the world has understood and would agree with everything you quoted, why haven't U.S. citizens?

/boggle


Cheers,

It is quite boggling. However you must remember their is that small percentage of Americans that refuse to open their eyes or think that it is so audatious (sp) that someone would attack us for things we have done.

Also, remember that same small percentage can't comprehend that there are others in the world that might not want to live or be like us....it's an identity thing...ya know!

And lest we forget...Obama is one of those free speech and liberty Americans....so he understands that people have valid opinions that might not fit with Anne Coulters view of things.

why haven't U.S. citizens?

Sorry, I should have been more specific and wrote:

why haven't some U.S. citizens?

I shouldn't be generalizing for all U.S. citizens.


Cheers,

Lokase, because that statement was given in this context --

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism."

I disagree completely with that statement. I understand your firmly in the U.S. deserved 9/11 camp (as apparently is Obama's mentor and pastor), but you'll be hard pressed to find a majority of U.S. citizens in agreement with you. I believe Jedd or another poster on this board effectively cheered after 9/11 as the U.S. "deserved it", but it was and is decidely in the minority.

To equate our bombing of Hiroshima with the 9/11 attacks is equally reprehensible.

Obama's dentist thinks that the US Government gives us cavities!

His grocer wishes we were Communist!

His barber hates women!

Panic!

Lokase, because that statement was given in this context --

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism."

I disagree completely with that statement. I understand your firmly in the U.S. deserved 9/11 camp (as apparently is Obama's mentor and pastor), but you'll be hard pressed to find a majority of U.S. citizens in agreement with you. I believe Jedd or another poster on this board effectively cheered after 9/11 as the U.S. "deserved it", but it was and is decidely in the minority.

To equate our bombing of Hiroshima with the 9/11 attacks is equally reprehensible.

Excuse me? I never cheered after 9/11... I did make a statement that I believed we reaped what we sowed. If you deny that our actions in the world have caused us to become the targets of terrorism then you need to start looking up some of our past actions and educate yourself.

I understand your firmly in the U.S. deserved 9/11 camp
No country deserves to have their citizens murdered.

The U.S. did not deserve 9/11.

I stood with 100,000 other Canadians on the parliment grounds here in Ottawa on 9/14 to pay my respects to those that were murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ParliamentHill911Memorial.jpg

The U.S. goverment did bring about 9/11 because of its own terrorism Terroism I think in the quote is not the right word. I would use atrosoties.

Cheers,

9/11 as the U.S. "deserved it"

A tiny minority thinks we deserved it. Anyone with an education past Romantic Myths of Manifest Destiny (read: US History curriculum) knows we earned it. Not that I'd expect people looking for any pretext to devolve a discussion to inflammatory slogan matches to understand the nuanced (read: hugely obvious) difference.

I do believe in we reap what we sow. We are far from innocent and our government isnt doing much to heal the black eyes...infact they keep getting punched.

A tiny minority thinks we deserved it. Anyone with an education past Romantic Myths of Manifest Destiny (read: US History curriculum) knows we earned it. Not that I'd expect people looking for any pretext to devolve a discussion to inflammatory slogan matches to understand the nuanced (read: hugely obvious) difference.

you take that back! they hate us for our freedom! waaaaaah!

Heh.

This one is easy.

In July, this dude is retiring from Obamas church. Before that, prolly in a couple weeks or so, he will go on Larry King or some such and say he was wrong for those things people are mentioning.

Kinda nowhere to go at that point.

Obama's pastor might get along with John Hagee quite well, given the latter's view that God is helping the Muslims kill us due to our sinful ways. No word yet on whether Wright believes the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves.

It's nothing more than the same type of hate mongering that Al Sharpton sinks to imho.

Did we earn 9/11, I guess you could argue that and I'd have to go along with it.

That being said the alternative to said earning would be to be isolantionist and then see the new reasons for folks to hate us.

Success breeds contempt...

You never fail unless you are truly trying in whatever endevour you are pursuing. The option of sitting at home and watching others crumble has never set well with us.

Damned if we do and damned if we dared not to ;P

Damned if we do and damned if we dared not to ;P

Or more directly...Make someone happy...piss someone else off...

Obamas official response:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

Uh huh, please. With his connections to Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers you really don't believe the words coming out of his mouth do you? Obama will be the most dangerously biased person to EVER hold sway in any elected office in American history. Should he win the election one thing you will all be right about, we reap what we sow. Have fun kiddies, but I see right through his words. Now let the negative rep comments flow you devilish O-bots.

Lets be honest though Osg, That would be your opinion of anyone with a D attached to their name.

Uh huh, please. With his connections to Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers you really don't believe the words coming out of his mouth do you? Obama will be the most dangerously biased person to EVER hold sway in any elected office in American history. Should he win the election one thing you will all be right about, we reap what we sow. Have fun kiddies, but I see right through his words. Now let the negative rep comments flow you devilish O-bots.


HA...you talk about dangeriously biased? Do you have any concept that, just maybe, blacks view Americas history just a bit differently than whites do?

You know people always go back to slavery and use that as a reason for dissent among the black community. I think what was almost worse than slavery was the blatant historical denial, mostly by omission, of the accomplishments of many blacks.

You think what he says is dangerous? Or, is it based in some truth?

Did the white man infect the blacks with aids? Probably not, but the white man did infect the blacks with Syphilus, just use your tiny fingers and Google the tuskegee experiment. Do you think that for one moment anyone here on this board would not feel some type of animosity if the racial roles had been reversed, I am most certain you would be Osg.

Oh and don't let my single example lull you into a false sense of white supremacy security, there is a long list of "indiscretions" perpetrated on the black community by us white folks.

Now, without using Google, post any accomplishments that you know of that Blacks are directly responsible for, and George Washington Carver doesn't count.


Now after you type out the one or two things you might be aware of, then use Google to see these people and what they have accomplished and how they have positively affected our lives.


Benjamin O. Davis, Jr
Vivien Thomas
Levi Watkins, Jr
Archibald Alphonso Alexander
Philip Emeagwali
Benjamin Banneker
James Armistead

I can add a few hundred more names if you want, I apologize for those I left out for the purposes of a short post.


I can tell you that every day I am alive can be directly attributed to two people on that list, and I bet you know people, white people, that are alive because of their work.

Now go on brother use Google, don't fear the truth....embrace it.

It's nothing more than the same type of hate mongering that Al Sharpton sinks to imho.

Did we earn 9/11, I guess you could argue that and I'd have to go along with it.

That being said the alternative to said earning would be to be isolantionist and then see the new reasons for folks to hate us.

Success breeds contempt...

You never fail unless you are truly trying in whatever endevour you are pursuing. The option of sitting at home and watching others crumble has never set well with us.

Damned if we do and damned if we dared not to ;P

i would go so far as to say that there is an option between "fucking everybody over" and "isolationism 4eva".

i would go so far as to say that there is an option between "fucking everybody over" and "isolationism 4eva".I was going to say the same. What kills me is how we fail to live up to the ideals we claim we believe in. Internationally we are trying to force democracy on other nations, sort of goes against the very concept. We have been involved with the overthrow of foreign governments, arms dealing, and flat out war mongering. Our involvement wasn't the problem, it's the way we've been doing it.

While I desperately want the truth to come out, I'm a little afraid of what will happen to the US after Bush is gone if we ever successfully investigate the garbage of the last eight years. Our country has violated most of our own principles - take a wild guess as to what is happening in prisons in Iraq when the US refuses to allow inspectors in. We have no business conducting ourselves in this manner internationally, and to believe that our actions played no part in causing 9/11 and similar attacks is naive at best.

And before someone tries it, I believe 9/11 was an atrocity, and, assuming the public story is true, it was carried out by cowards and murderers.

if we ever successfully investigate the garbage of the last eight years.



Problem is, they will spend at least another eight investigating, and then another eight arguing what can be made public, and then another eight tying up the courts with motions and counter motions, and most will be dead that would have been held accountable.

That is how they protect each other in Wonderland.

Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer have both come out stating that Obama should not be held accountable for the words of his preacher, and it has also been pointed out that Obama was not even present when the speech they are showing clips from was given. That is good to hear, and should be applied across the board in the same manner. But, not realistic.

Does anyone believe that there are not folks out there at this moment scouring the sermons given by that preacher when Obama was present? He had an ongoing relationship with that preacher for 20 years, being married by him and having his children baptized as well. I do not expect this is going to be the last we hear about this.

Such is the state of politics in America.

Assuming his sermons are available. Mike Huckabee's campaign kept his hidden from reporters -- Wright might do the same assuming he has copies. They probably aren't generally available.

In any case, Obama has moved away from Wright quite forcefully and has a new pastor (who might receive the scrutiny Byl suggests).

In any case, Obama has moved away from Wright quite forcefully and has a new pastorSpitzer can get a new hooker too, but it doesn't change much though.

Spitzer can get a new hooker too, but it doesn't change much though.

Other then the fact that a hooker is illegal and a pastor is not?

In any case, Obama has moved away from Wright quite forcefully and has a new pastor (who might receive the scrutiny Byl suggests).


Yesterday while working on a few projects, I had Fox on for the humor factor of Chris Wallace and his panel. Being busy, I left it on that channel for much of the afternoon. This was the topic of the day, and was looked at in a number of interesting ways.

Juan Williams made the point that I think bears the most scrutiny when looking at Obama and his judgment and character, as Mr Williams put it. Obama actively sought out membership in this church to gain acceptance in the black, inner-city community of Chicago as he was building his "resume" and contacts and connections for his political future in Chicago and Illinois. Now, having used that relationship to his advantage for 20 years, he is cutting those ties because they do not help him in his quest for the White House, but instead can harm his chances.

It is beyond belief that he could be ignorant of these kinds of sermons given by his pastor of 20 years, and that he only cut those ties when it became a public talking point does speak volumes about character and judgment. This, according to Juan Williams.

I agree.

This is getting down played by the Obama camp as a crazy uncle, but you don't send your kids to learn from a crazy uncle once a week. Its also pretty suspect that the Obama campaign presumably shipped him off somewhere to hide him from the press.

He's made a few points, but a lot of his sermons were just loony. Why is he abusing his power to preach that nonsense, and why didn't Barak speak up before it was a media issue. I like Barak, but this has concerned me now that I've learned more about it.

03-16-2008 11:39 PM Jedd Corpse What an idiot... Too bad you republicans are done... lol

"Anger and insults are the common replacement for those with no proof of what they desperately want to believe."-FreudThat's the third. I suspect it'll be 4 before week's end.

That's the third. I suspect it'll be 4 before week's end.

I was a responding to...

03-16-2008 10:01 PM akipt get a fucking clue you tool

Keep crying baby

And as the economy collapses and we become ever more mired in Iraq and as we blow off Afghanistan....we care about crap like this!


Golf Clap!

Keep crying babyYup, 4. Ghandi you are not. Hyprocrite you are.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that this Pastor might feel this way? Why can't he or why shouldn't he?

He's black...blacks have been pissed on for years.

Blacks had medical expirements performed on them by the US government for years, from the '30s to 1972...talk about bullshit things done to a race of people.

Oh, thats right it was only wrong for the nazis to do stuff like that, but certainly not our government.

Of course we are all aware of the Tuskegee Airmen...well at least since HBO did the movie...because for some reason our school history books left them out.

And of course those dang pacemakers and defribilators implanted in peoples bodies...well it was a bunch of white doctors from Johns Hopkins who were instrumental in those inventions...oh no wait...it was a Black doctor and a Black lab tech who are responsible for those....but of course we forgot to say that..

The list is long and interesting of ignored black accomplishments and yet people are so shocked that we might have pissed someone off.

Of course we couldn't possibly be the recipients of "blowback" from past or current policies...after all...we are dropping freedom bombs....they might kill and destroy...but its a good death, because they are gonna be free dead people.

And of course those dang pacemakers and defribilators implanted in peoples bodies...well it was a bunch of white doctors from Johns Hopkins who were instrumental in those inventions...oh no wait...it was a Black doctor and a Black lab tech who are responsible for those....but of course we forgot to say that..



Funny, I wouldn't think race had anything to do with these inventions....nor any of the others that have occured throughout history. Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of the person's race.

However, hateful, and racist comments should be treated the same way; regardless of the person's skin color, they are bad ideas.

Believe it or not, African Americans can be just as hateful and racist as whites. I have first hand experience in that arena.

Funny, I wouldn't think race had anything to do with these inventions....nor any of the others that have occured throughout history. Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of the person's race.

Unfortunately race had a lot to do with it...you see white doctors were given credit for them when it was actually black doctors who did. Unfortunately those institutions involved and society felt it was best left unsaid who actually created these things and procedures.


There are tons of things invented and procedures created and or refined by Blacks....the problem was....their accomplishments were outright ignored by written history, and that brought race into it.

Kind of a bell curve thing....remember that?

In response, I'll repost something you wrote back last November:

http://ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=129483&postcount=59

Here is a story that I find quite ironic.

I truly believe in freedom of religion, in fact I let my children make their own choices. My oldest daughter has become involved in a christian youth group at a local church and she attends weekly meetings, goes on trips and has become quite involved with the youth group.

So turn back the clock to hurricane katrina and she comes home one night and is telling me how the pastor has told tem that the victims of the hurricane are the ones at fault. They created their own problems because of the lifestyle they chose to live in New Orleans and that they basically deserved what they got.

I was a bit pissed off that a christian minister who so obviously influences these children was so compassionless and cold when it came to those less fortunate. So I phone the pastor and ask him why he would say something like that to children who value his opinion, he did say that although no one knew what God was thinking that he was certain this was a punishment directed at the victims of Katrina.

I asked him if he would consider that perhaps God did this to the people in New Orleans as a way to test the compassion of those much like himself. He disagreed even after I pointed out that he himself stated that "no one knows what God is thinking".

That is what scares me most about religious people, their lack of an ability to look at things from more than one side.And if you remember I responded that I thought you had a better grasp of Christianity than your daughter's minister.

Wright and his black legacy religion is even further removed from mainstream Christianity than even this preacher of yours was... but you're now excusing it because he's a victim? I don't see how he's a victim.

I'll find an article I read last week while on travel - it's not handy, but I suspect you don't fully understand what this Wright and others he agrees with truly believe.

And let me say this before I go any further: I'm not saying Obama believes this stuff, though listening to some of his wife's oopsies in past speaches I see she may have been influenced by his rhetoric. I am fairly confident that he and his wife used and affiliated themselves with this church for political gain ... and now for political loss. Sorry, I'm unmoved by his response to this. You don't get your children baptised into a hate filled congregation and stick to it unless you either see gain from it in some way or actually believe the stuff.

In response, I'll repost something you wrote back last November:

http://ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=129483&postcount=59

And if you remember I responded that I thought you had a better grasp of Christianity than your daughter's minister.

Wright and his black legacy religion is even further removed from mainstream Christianity than even this preacher of yours was... but you're now excusing it because he's a victim? I don't see how he's a victim.

I'll find an article I read last week while on travel - it's not handy, but I suspect you don't fully understand what this Wright and others he agrees with truly believe.

And let me say this before I go any further: I'm not saying Obama believes this stuff, though listening to some of his wife's oopsies in past speaches I see she may have been influenced by his rhetoric. I am fairly confident that he and his wife used and affiliated themselves with this church for political gain ... and now for political loss. Sorry, I'm unmoved by his response to this. You don't get your children baptised into a hate filled congregation and stick to it unless you either see gain from it in some way or actually believe the stuff.


And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify.

In response, I'll repost something you wrote back last November:

http://ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=129483&postcount=59

And if you remember I responded that I thought you had a better grasp of Christianity than your daughter's minister.

Wright and his black legacy religion is even further removed from mainstream Christianity than even this preacher of yours was... but you're now excusing it because he's a victim? I don't see how he's a victim.

I'll find an article I read last week while on travel - it's not handy, but I suspect you don't fully understand what this Wright and others he agrees with truly believe.

And let me say this before I go any further: I'm not saying Obama believes this stuff, though listening to some of his wife's oopsies in past speaches I see she may have been influenced by his rhetoric. I am fairly confident that he and his wife used and affiliated themselves with this church for political gain ... and now for political loss. Sorry, I'm unmoved by his response to this. You don't get your children baptised into a hate filled congregation and stick to it unless you either see gain from it in some way or actually believe the stuff.

Wright was a Marine turned Pastor, He has seen with his own eyes what this country has done and he speaks about it. Too bad it contradicts the fairy tale that to you is America.

And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify.

He has seen with his own eyes what this country has done and he speaks about it. Too bad it contradicts the fairy tale that to you is America.

You know, correct me if I'm wrong, but from Obama's denunciations of Wright's sermons, he appears to agree with me on this one.

If not, he's twisted himself into a pretty pickle.

If only Wright was merely a gay-hating, anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist, desirous of provoking a war pitting Russia and Iran against Israel in order to usher in Armageddon and the Second Coming he could avoided all this controversy.

i think you forgot brown people-hating there thormir.

And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify.


God Damn, I think qualifies....

I haven't met a pastor/minister/priest that would use this term, even if set on fire.....

Not that I'm advocating someone setting this man on fire, at all....

If only Wright was merely a gay-hating, anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist, desirous of provoking a war pitting Russia and Iran against Israel in order to usher in Armageddon and the Second Coming he could avoided all this controversy.This isn't about Wright. It's about Obama not having the same sense that Oprah had in getting out of this church.

HA...you talk about dangeriously biased? Do you have any concept that, just maybe, blacks view Americas history just a bit differently than whites do?

You know people always go back to slavery and use that as a reason for dissent among the black community. I think what was almost worse than slavery was the blatant historical denial, mostly by omission, of the accomplishments of many blacks.

You think what he says is dangerous? Or, is it based in some truth?

Did the white man infect the blacks with aids? Probably not, but the white man did infect the blacks with Syphilus, just use your tiny fingers and Google the tuskegee experiment. Do you think that for one moment anyone here on this board would not feel some type of animosity if the racial roles had been reversed, I am most certain you would be Osg.

Oh and don't let my single example lull you into a false sense of white supremacy security, there is a long list of "indiscretions" perpetrated on the black community by us white folks.

Now, without using Google, post any accomplishments that you know of that Blacks are directly responsible for, and George Washington Carver doesn't count.


Now after you type out the one or two things you might be aware of, then use Google to see these people and what they have accomplished and how they have positively affected our lives.


Benjamin O. Davis, Jr
Vivien Thomas
Levi Watkins, Jr
Archibald Alphonso Alexander
Philip Emeagwali
Benjamin Banneker
James Armistead

I can add a few hundred more names if you want, I apologize for those I left out for the purposes of a short post.


I can tell you that every day I am alive can be directly attributed to two people on that list, and I bet you know people, white people, that are alive because of their work.

Now go on brother use Google, don't fear the truth....embrace it.

Rover, did I say anything in my post that indicated black Americans had not help advance America's prosperity and future? No? Can't seem to find it? Good because I never said anything of the sort. I merely suggest Obama is not the savior you make him to be. The guys has very shady and suspect friends and contacts. The guys is down right scary. You insinuate that I am some sort or white supremest. Nay dear Rover. I'd vote for Powell or Rice in a new york minute. But, I do intend to suggest Obama a black separatist at heart. He is a politician and there for is kissing the publics ass in hopes of getting elected. You can follow his "Change". You can follow your cult of personality. You can follow Obama as his crowd of useful idiots, but I sure am not falling for it. Rover, nest time please read my post with thoughtful and careful scrutiny.

"And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify."

How about starting with AIDS was a disease created by whites to destroy blacks?

This isn't about Wright. It's about Obama not having the same sense that Oprah had in getting out of this church.
AND it's about McCain's "sense" in seeking and embracing the support of individuals who hold the views my posts have noted.

Rover, you went overboard this time.

Other than the fact that, as far as we know, this Pastor Wright is not out recruiting fanatics, please explain to me how his brand of radical fanaticism as voiced in his sermons differs from the victim-hood espoused by those radical fanatics who preach hatred and that recruited someone to drive a truck into some Marine barracks?

This is not about the Pastor tho'; it is about his talking stupid shit, and Obama being okay with using his connection to the Pastor as long as that connection did him some good in local politics, but leaving him in the dust now that he has caused a stir on the national scene.

"And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify."

How about starting with AIDS was a disease created by whites to destroy blacks?

You know there are a lot of people who believe that Aids was created to thin out the population of blacks.... including doctors and scientists. Research Dr. Arrigo who worked for the CIA on WMD's. It may be a elaborate conspiracy theory... But it is a belief by many, right along the lines of the beliefs that our government let 9/11 happen as a pretext to war.

Rover, you went overboard this time.

Other than the fact that, as far as we know, this Pastor Wright is not out recruiting fanatics, please explain to me how his brand of radical fanaticism as voiced in his sermons differs from the victim-hood espoused by those radical fanatics who preach hatred and that recruited someone to drive a truck into some Marine barracks?

This is not about the Pastor tho'; it is about his talking stupid shit, and Obama being okay with using his connection to the Pastor as long as that connection did him some good in local politics, but leaving him in the dust now that he has caused a stir on the national scene.

The issue here is that you think he preached fanatical views. How is the truth fanatical? His theory on aids may be a conspiracy theory without enough evidence to back his claims, but everything else he said was pretty much dead on.

Obama had to distance himself because of the disgusting backlash on the poor guy for attending church and listening to this man possibly make a "fanatical" statement every once in awhile.

So in a theological sense, Wrights sermon, when not seen in tha tone clip can be theologically justified.

Luke 6:24
24 But woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation. 25 Woe to you that are filled: for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep. 26 Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.

That's the King James version.

But the Scholars Translation...
Damn you rich! You already have your compensation.

Damn you who are well-fed! You will know hunger.

Damn you who laugh now! You will weep and grieve.

Damn you when everybody speaks well of you!


When the entire scope and context of the comments are seen its Wright phrased them as "How many of you have felt this way?" This is less controversial than the statements Jesus made in Luke.

Anyway.
here is a better view at the who Pastor Wright is and what he believes.

"Several years ago while down in Richmond, Virginia, the Lord blessed my life by allowing me to be in that city during the same week that the annual convocation was being held at the Virginia Union University School of Theology, and it was at that convocation that I was privileged to and blessed to hear the preaching and teaching of Reverend Frederick G. Sampson of Detroit, Michigan and in one of this lectures Dr. Sampson talked about a picture that I had had to study in humanities courses at that same school, Virginia Union back in the late 50’s.

"And Dr. Sampson talked about the picture so beautifully and so powerfully that memories were brought back to me from those college days in the 50’s and he talked about the painting as being a study in contradictions because what is depicted as the title and what is on the canvas seems to be in direct opposition one to the other. You see, the painting is titled “Hope” and it shows a woman sitting on top of the world playing a harp. Now at first glance, that would be all right, for what more enviable position could one ever hope to achieve than being on top of the world with the whole world, everything and everyone dancing to your music. But when you look closer at the picture, when the illusion of power gives way tot the reality of pain the world at which this woman sits, our world, that is a world which is torn by war, destroyed by hate, devastated by despair and devastated by distrust. The world on which she sits is on the very brink of destruction. Famine ravishes millions of the inhabitants of this world in one hemisphere while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere. A time bomb ticking is the world on which she sits with apartheid in one hemisphere and apathy in the other hemisphere and enough nuclear warhead scientists tell us to wipe out all forms of life except for cockroaches and that is the world on which this woman sits. A world which cares about more bombs for the enemy than it does about bread for the hungry. A world that is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character. A world more finicky about the texture of hair or what is on the outside of your head than it is about the quality of education or what is on the inside of one’s head. That is the world on which this woman sits. You and I think of being on top of the world as being in heaven, but when you look at the woman on Watt’s painting a little closer what you discover is that this woman is in Hell. And that artist Watt dares to entitled the painting “Hope.”

"Then, on top of that, she’s sitting there in rags. Tattered clothes as if she herself has been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Her head is bandaged and her blood is beginning to seep through the bandages. Scars and cuts are visible on her face, her arms and her legs. That’s when you look closer at the picture. And the instrument, on which she plays, her harp, has all but one of its strings broken, torn or ripped out. Even the instrument ha been damaged by what she has been though and she is even more the example of quiet despair than anything else. Yet, the artist dares entitle the painting “Hope.”

"When you look closer at what Watt has done on that canvas, the illusion of power, sitting on top of the world gives way to the reality of pain and isn’t that the way it is with so many of us? Oh, we give the illusion of being in an enviable position, being on top of the world, but when you look closer at our lives what you begin to find is the reality, many times, of a pain almost too deep for the tongue to tell. Like that woman in Watt’s painting where it looks like heaven is actually for many of us, existing in a quiet Hell. I’ve been pasturing for 17 years; I’ve seen top many of these cases not to know what I am talking about. I’ve seen married couples where the husband has a girlfriend in addition to his wife. And it’s something people don’t talk about anymore you smile and pretend you don’t hear the whispers and the gossip and you remember you’ve got the legal papers on him and he would rather try to buy Fort Knox than get a divorce from you. That’s a living hell.

"I’ve seen married couples where the wife discovers someone else cares for her as a person, not just as a cook, a maid, a jitney service and a call girl service all wrapped into one, but there’s a scandal, what folk might say and the scandal of the children. That’s a living hell.

"I’ve seen divorcees whose dreams have been blown to bits, families who are broken beyond repair whose lives seem now somehow to have slipped through their fingers they’ve lost complete control. That’s a living Hell.

"I’ve seen college students who give the illusion of being on top of the world. Designer clothes, all the sex they want, all the cocaine or marijuana or drugs, all the trappings of having it all together on the outside and empty and shallow and hurting and lonely and afraid on the inside. Many times what looks good on the outside, the illusion of being in power, the illusion of sitting on top of the world, when you get closer is actually existing in a quiet Hell. And that is exactly where Hannah is in First Samuel the first chapter the first eighteen verses.

"Hannah is top dog in this three way relationship between herself AC and Peninah. Her husband loves her more than he loves his wife and other children. He tells her that loves her and a lot of husbands don’t do that. He shows her that he loves her and many husbands never get around to doing that. In fact it is his attention to her and his devotion that cause P to be so angry and to stay on her case so constantly. Jealous. Jealously will get a hold of you and you can’t let it go because it won’t let you go. Peninah stayed on her as we like we say as “white on rice.” Stayed on her constantly, picking on her, making her cry. Taking her appetite away.

"At first glance, Hannah’s position seems enviable; she had all the rights and none of the responsibilities. No diapers to change, beds to set up beside at night no noses to wipe. No nothing else’s to wipe either. No babies draining you of your milk, demanding feedings. Hannah had it all. Top dog. No baby portions to fix at meal times. Her man loved her. Everybody knew he loved her. He loved her more than anything or anybody and that’s why Peninah hated her so much. Now, except for this second wife bit, which was legal back then, Hannah was sitting on top of the world, until you looked closer. And when you look closer what looked like heaven was actually existing in a quiet Hell.

"She not only had the pain of a bitter woman to contend with but nonstop Peninah stayed on her. She not only had that pain of a bitter woman she also had as in Bible days, another pain. The pain of a barren womb. You will remember the story of the widow in second Kings four the woman who had no child. The story of women in biblical days with no children was as story of deep pathos and despair. You do remember the story of Sarah and what she did in Genesis sixteen because of her barren womb before the three heavenly visitors stopped by their tent. You do remember the story of Elizabeth and her husband in Luke one back in Bible days the story of a woman with a barren womb was that if deep pathos and Hannah was afflicted with the pain of a bitter woman on one hand and the pain of a barren womb on the other. Her world was flawed, flaky. Her respectability was tattered and torn and her heart was bruised and bleeding by the constant attacks of a jealous woman. The scars and scratches on her psyche are almost visible as you look at this passage as she cries; refusing to eat anything just like the woman in Watt’s painting what looks like being in Heaven is actually existing in a quiet Hell.

"Now I want to share briefly with you about Hannah, the lady and the Lord. But while I do so I want you to be thinking about where it is you live and the particular pain predicament that is yours. Think about for a moment. Come back to what Dr. Sampson was saying at Virginia Union who said he wanted to quarrel with the artist who had the gall to name that painting “Hope” when all he could see on the picture is Hell. A quiet desperation. But then Dr. Sampson said he noticed he had only been looking at the horizontal relationships. How this woman was hooked up with this world in which she lived, this world in which she sat. Her horizontal dimension, her horizontal relationships. He had failed to take into account her vertical relationships. He had said he had not looked above her head. And when he looked over her head he found some small notes of music moving joyfully and playfully towards heaven. And that’s when he began to understand why the artist entitled the painting “Hope” Because in spite of being in a world torn by war, in spite of being on a world destroyed by hate, decimated by distrust, in spite of being in a world where famine and greed are uneasy bed partners, in spite of being on a world where apartheid and apathy feed the fires of racism and hatred, in spite of being on a world where nuclear nightmare draws closer with each second, in spite of being on a world with a ticking time bomb, with her clothes in rags, her body scarred, bruised and bleeding and her heart all but destroyed with that one string she had left, Hannah had the audacity to make music and praise God.

"The vertical dimension balanced out what was going on the horizontal dimension. And that is what the audacity to hope will do for you. The apostle Paul said the same thing. Paul said you have troubles? Glory in your troubles. We glory in tribulation. That’s the horizontal dimension. We glory in tribulation because, he says, tribulation works patience and patience works experience and experience works hope. That’s the vertical dimension. And hope makes us not shame. The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal dimension. And that is the real story here in Samuel the first chapter. Not the condition of Hannah’s body, but the condition of Hannah’s soul. Her vertical dimension.

"She had the audacity to keep on hoping and to keep on praying and to keep on praying when there was no visible sign on the horizontal level that what she was praying for, hoping for, waiting for would ever be answered in the affirmative. That what she wanted most out of life had been denied to her. Think about that. Yet in spite of it, she kept on hoping. The gloating of Peninah did not make her bitter, she kept on hoping. When her family made its pilgrimage to the sanctuary she renewed her petition there, pouring out her heart to God. She may have been barren in her womb, that’s the horizontal dimension; she was fertile in however in her spirit, her vertical dimension. She prayed and she prayed and she kept on praying year after year, no answer and she kept on praying. She prayed so fervently in this passage that Eli though she had to be drunk. There as no sign on the horizontal level that for which she was praying for would ever be answered and Paul said something about that, too. No visible sign. Hope, the vertical dimension, he says, hope is what saves us for we are saved by hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he have hope for it, but if we hope for that which we see not, no visible sign, then do we with patience wait for it, almost an echo of what the prophet Isaiah said: they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal direction.

"In your life, there may not be any visible sign of a change in your individual situation whatever your private Hell is. But that’s just a horizontal level. Keep the vertical level intact, like Hannah and you may like the African slaves be able to sing “over my head I hear music in the air, over my head I hear music in the air, over my head I hear music in the air, there must be a God somewhere.”

"Keep the vertical dimension intact like Hannah. Have the audacity to hope for that child of yours, have the audacity to hope for that home of yours, have the audacity to hope for the church of yours. For whatever it is you’ve been praying, keep on praying and you may like my grandmother sing “There’s a bright side somewhere, there’s a bright side somewhere.” There is a bright side somewhere. Don’t you rest until you find it, for there is a bright side somewhere. The real lesson that Hannah gives us from this chapter, the most important word that God has here is how to hope when the love of God is not plainly evident. It’s easy to hope when there is evidence all around you of how good God is, but to have the audacity to hope when that love is not evident and you don’t know where that somewhere is that my grandmother sang about, or if there will ever be that brighter day. That is the true test of a Hannah-type faith. To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope, to make music and praise God on and with whatever it is you have left even though you can’t see what God is going to do. That is the real word God would have us hear from this passage and from this painting.

"There is a true-life illustration that demonstrates the principles so powerfully played in this pericapy. And I close with it. My mom and my dad used to sing a song I have not been able to find in any of the published hymnals. It is an old song out of the black religious tradition, called “Thank You, Jesus.” It is a very simple song and some of you have heard it. It goes, “I thank you, Jesus. I thank you, Jesus, I thank you, Jesus.” But to me they would always sing that song at what seemed like the strangest times. When the money got low in our home, or when the food was running out, or when I was getting in trouble they would start singing that song. And, I never understood it because as a child it seemed to me they were thanking God we had no money, or thanking God that we had no food or were thanking God I was in trouble or making a fool out of myself as a kid. But I was only looking at the horizontal level. I did not understand, nor could I see back then, the vertical hookup that my mother and my father had. I did not know then they were thanking Him in advance for all that they dared to hope for that He would do one day to their son, in their son and through their son. That’s why they prayed, that’s why they hoped and that’s why they kept on praying. No visible sign on the horizon and that’s why I thank God I had praying parents because now some 35 years later when I look at what God had done in my life I understand clearly how Hannah had the audacity to hope, why my parents had the audacity to hope and that’s why I say to you hope is what saves us. Keeping on hoping, keep on praying. God does hear and answer prayers."

"And what did Obamas minister say that was wrong? Please specify."

How about starting with AIDS was a disease created by whites to destroy blacks?


I believe I addressed that if you read, his animosity is based on the FACT that black sharecroppers were purposely infected with Syphilus (sp) by the United states Public Health Service a service of the US goernment and were not told what was making them sick, were not treated for the disease but were allowed to suffer and die, this was done from the '50s through early '70s. Why? Because our government, run by whites, could get away with it.

So I think his suspicions are valid, even if incorrect.

Rover, you went overboard this time.

Other than the fact that, as far as we know, this Pastor Wright is not out recruiting fanatics, please explain to me how his brand of radical fanaticism as voiced in his sermons differs from the victim-hood espoused by those radical fanatics who preach hatred and that recruited someone to drive a truck into some Marine barracks?

This is not about the Pastor tho'; it is about his talking stupid shit, and Obama being okay with using his connection to the Pastor as long as that connection did him some good in local politics, but leaving him in the dust now that he has caused a stir on the national scene.


From the political sense I agree with you. But it is beyond that, it goes to understanding why the man feels the way he does...and that is much more important than the political mudslinging that will come of this.

From the political sense I agree with you. But it is beyond that, it goes to understanding why the man feels the way he does...and that is much more important than the political mudslinging that will come of this.

NO, Rover, it is not about the pastor, but about why Obama felt it was okay to use his relationship with the Pastor and the church to further his local and state political ambitions but now that the national arena is asking questions, Obama disavows the relationship.

This is about Obama's character and judgment, not the Pastor.

He doesn't disavow the Pastor, he disavowed these comments.

He was married by the dude, he had his children baptized by the dude... it was never to "further his own political ambitions".

Nor do I think for a second that this went on with any regularity in this church. If it did, we wouldnt be hearing these same 4 or 5 soundbites repeated into infinity.

Are they bad, yes. They sound, at best, ill conceived.

This guy has a handful of stupid comments to him. Does that totally negate a lifetime of good work, a lifetime of being one of the most respected Black Preachers in America?

No. It means he did something stupid.

And to pin all of this on Obama is a smear, plain and simple.

Im happy all of you have lead such blessed lives that a person that you loved and trusted has never disappointed or hurt you,or let you down. But see, here in the real world it is part of life and it happens all the time.\
It doesnt go to his judgement. It doesnt mean anything than this one person in Obama's life said some stupid things.

Right now Obama is in a House of Pain, and he will Hemmorage some Reagan Democrat support. But the attacks are obvious and over reaching and too easily countered.

I mean really. You REALLY think he is some plant who secretly hates America and all this is being done to destroy the country? Really?
Give me a fucking break.

Oh and by the way. You want more proof that this is all a pile of bullshit?

These cocksuckers cant even just stick to the truth.

Newsmax reporter Jim Davis (Freeper name: Philo1962) reported that Obama was in attendance during a July 22 speech
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml

Uber Dickwad Bill Kristol even wrote a NYTimes article based on it
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?hp

Well.. Fuck you very much asshole.
YouTube video posted on Aug 8.

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

Keep lying you stupid bastards.

Nice spin Putinista!

Anyway. here is a better view at the who Pastor Wright is and what he believes.I have no doubt that as the pastor of a very large church he has the ability to put together a good sermon ... some of them I may even say amen after, but one sermon does not make a pastor. Over 20 years there are at least 1000 more, and at least 6 of those I've read/heard and I'm very confident Jesus would have been out in the parking lot preaching something entirely different.

Obama simply cannot run on a platform of tolerance, blessings of this great country, and unity (go reread his 2004 keynote address or any number of campaign speeches)

..... while being a member of a church and very close friend and long time mentor who preaches such shocking hate filled rhetoric of intolerance, cynicism, and racism.

Wright is closer to the hate of Malcolm X than he is to MLK or even Jesus. Some on this board are obliged to ignore all of this because they're stuck on his message of hope.

Keep on hoping then and say president McCain. Yes you can!

Well.. Fuck you very much asshole.
YouTube video posted on Aug 8.Doesn't matter if he was there or not from my point of view, but you can catch a morning sermon and then fly to Miami for an afternoon conference.

Fact is, Obama knew he was controversial enough to nix Wright from being there for his election kickoff event.

No, I guess it doesnt matter from your point of view. Never mind that the argument is that he is LYING about not being attendance during one of these 4 of 5 soundclips. Turns out he isnt the one lying.

But thats the par for the course with your side isnt it?

The liars call the honest man a liar.
The racists call the black man a racist.

And you, who has been sucking the dick of authoritarianism for at least 8 years accuses me of supporting an authoritarian. Its so old and predictable. It is beneath contempt, it is pathetic in its self delusion.

Over 20 years there are at least 1000 more, and at least 6 of those I've read/heard and I'm very confident Jesus would have been out in the parking lot preaching something entirely different.

Which Six? Do you have links to these sermons? Or just pre packaged soundclips?

Obama is going to survive this. And be the nominee. And at some point McCain is going to have answer for Hagee.
Besides, McCain knows all about someone he loves disappointing him.
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg

But I will give you credit, your self delusion is strong.
You think with a Republican President with a 28% approval rating, an extremely unpopular war with no end in sight, a economy in the midst of a major recession and a party base that pretty much hates their candidate, that there will be a President McCain?
Yea.. Okay... Good Luck with that.

Bottom line is that this happening at this time is really the most advantageous time this could have happened for Obama. He has the Nomination all but wrapped up, he has HRC in a position where she maxed out her negative campaign and cant touch it, he has 6 weeks until his next primary, in a state he isnt supposed to win anyway.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/brilljt/clayton-1.gif

Reality, unfortunately for you Akipt, has well known liberal bias.

NO, Rover, it is not about the pastor, but about why Obama felt it was okay to use his relationship with the Pastor and the church to further his local and state political ambitions but now that the national arena is asking questions, Obama disavows the relationship.

This is about Obama's character and judgment, not the Pastor.


I don't see it that way. It has been pointed out that Obama attended that church for 20+ years. Saying that he started that long ago to manipulate the system and had his eye on the whitehouse is as patently ridiculious as when it was said that Bill Clinton manipulated a photo of himself and JFK because he to knew that it was his start of a presidential run.

If everyone is going to get all high and mighty over what some pastor said in a sermon that Obama did not even attend that in itself is dangerous as a religious affiliation is not supposed to matter in this country.

But since it seems to, lets look at the blatantly obvious "courting" of nutball pastors that McCain is not only accepting endorsements from, but is wholeheartedly embracing. That is political manipulation at its finest.

We are upon a choice in this country..a choice between a government where we have the choice or a government where the likes of Pat Robertson chooses for us.

No, I guess it doesnt matter from your point of view. Never mind that the argument is that he is LYING about not being attendance during one of these 4 of 5 soundclips. Turns out he isnt the one lying.The NY Times has been lying about lots of things, but when they finally lie about your candidate (no not Putin) you get all riled up. Good for you. Don't worry, section Z67 will have a retraction for you in a couple of weeks, if they even get around to it.
And you, who has been sucking the dick of authoritarianism for at least 8 years accuses me of supporting an authoritarian. Its so old and predictable. It is beneath contempt, it is pathetic in its self delusion.Oh I finally got a nerve. You bandy about long words you have no clue what they mean. Ask the Tibet folk about authoritarianism you sad shit. By the way, you ever get a chance to cast that vote for Putin? You said you would you know... Yeah right, nice try.

You think with a Republican President with a 28% approval rating, an extremely unpopular war with no end in sight, a economy in the midst of a major recession and a party base that pretty much hates their candidate, that there will be a President McCain?Two weeks ago I was resigned to a president Obama. Looks like the Democrats managed to implode themselves. And I'm still waiting for that 'death by a thousand cuts' you promised McCain last month when he had an alleged affair.

We've still got a ways to go yet, so don't worry this isn't over by any means.

Saying that he started that long ago to manipulate the system and had his eye on the whitehouse is as patently ridiculious as when it was said that Bill Clinton manipulated a photo of himself and JFK because he to knew that it was his start of a presidential run.

If everyone is going to get all high and mighty over what some pastor said in a sermon that Obama did not even attend that in itself is dangerous as a religious affiliation is not supposed to matter in this country.





Who said this? Who or where was it said that Obama started that long ago to manipulate anything with regard to ambitions of the Whitehouse? What has been said, as I mentioned Juan Williams was discussing on Fox, is that Barak Obama did indeed seek out membership in this church for the reason that it would provide him with access to the innercity networks of Chicago's political grass roots, for his local/statewide ambitions.

It worries me that folks have become so enamored of this candidate that they will bend over backwards to excuse the same behavior they will castigate the opponent for, and go so far as make personal attacks on people rather than discuss the specifics in question about the candidates.

The irony is that we saw the same from a reverse perspective seven years ago.

The NY Times has been lying about lots of things, but when they finally lie about your candidate (no not Putin) you get all riled up. Good for you. Don't worry, section Z67 will have a retraction for you in a couple of weeks, if they even get around to it.

Bill Kristol repeating a News Max lie.

Kristol isnt long for any serious Journalistic publication if he can't learn to vet his sources more appropriately.

Besides... Why isnt you Conservatives have such a tough time separating the OPINION part of the NY Times from the News Reporting. See, I can tell the difference. Bill Kristol and Maureen Dowd =/= NY Times.

The Putin stuff is pretty fruity gay btw. Weak Sauce. But, hell, feel free to continue beating the horse, its dead, so it cant feel it anyway.

Besides... Why isnt you Conservatives have such a tough time separating the OPINION part of the NY Times from the News Reporting. See, I can tell the difference. Bill Kristol and Maureen Dowd =/= NY Times.Because there is no difference, the same for Fox News .. news, opinion, entertainment... all the same catagories found in the NY Times. But I'd never expect you to differentiate between the them .. because I don't either.

The Putin stuff is pretty fruity gay btw. Weak Sauce. But, hell, feel free to continue beating the horse, its dead, so it cant feel it anyway.Your last vitriolic post reveals the lie in that. Admit it, you know I'm right.

The Putin stuff is pretty fruity gay btw.
For real? On a thread about discrimination?

the difference, akipt, is that fox is all opinion, not like the new york times, which actually does contain news.

also, why are you calling everyone putinistas?

For real? On a thread about discrimination?

This thread is the first time I have truly found myself disappointed in some of the long-time posters' comments. How can a choice of political candidates spur such vitriolic posts? And we are just in the primary stage....what kind of crap is going to be flying in the general election?

Oh, the usual crap I suspect, perhaps with racial or gender-based undertones.

Im sorry..

The Putin stuff is very "Wide Stance".. better?

It doesn't really bother me. Its just it is so overused that I felt compelled to mention it.

Anyway I hope you like the new changes.

what kind of crap is going to be flying in the general election?

Obama = A Muslim, Non Patriotic, Gay, Racist Willie Horton

Obama = A Muslim, Non Patriotic, Gay, Racist Willie Horton

Most of those are right.

Why would Gay be an issue? Wouldn't a lot of Democrats think that's just fine?

Here's another good summary of the good reverend's beliefs (emphasis mine):

"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."

Is this the "hope" that inspires Obama?

Here's another good summary of the good reverend's beliefs (emphasis mine):

"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."

Is this the "hope" that inspires Obama?

Can you cite the reference this comes from, for those of us that might want to research it further, please?

Can you cite the reference this comes from, for those of us that might want to research it further, please?
Trust Furtivus to offer the most shallow, analytically vacuous input possible. The reference isn't from Wright but from James Cone, a major force of "black theology" in the 1960s (and an influence on Wright). You can read a bit about him here (http://www.answers.com/topic/james-cone). His firebrand theology made him quite a target for criticism by those who didn't pay attention (or simply didn't want to). Of primary importance is Cone's use of "black" and "white" as symbolic terms. The key is this:
"Being black in America has very little to do with skin color. To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are. … Being reconciled to God does not mean that one's skin is physically black. It essentially depends on the color of your heart, soul, and mind." For Cone, then, blackness is a symbol for the oppressed and whiteness is a symbol for the oppressor.Cone's theology is centered around liberation from oppression, not exactly a revolutionary reading of New Testament thematics. Thus, the "white enemy" to be destroyed is racism and oppression, not white people as such.

A better look at the "good reverend's" actual beliefs would be his church's website (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm). Be astounded as you read the following vitriol:

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

A better look at the "good reverend's" actual beliefs would be his church's website (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm).

Looking at the Mission statement, and keeping in mind his sermons that have been clipped and spread about the news networks, I would like to know his stance on the topic of reparations, as well as how Obama views that touchy subject.

It is bound to come up at some point in the campaigns, yet I have seen nothing addressing it yet.

Given the attention paid to Wright's sermons, I wonder if the non-appearance of reparations as an issue is because...it's not an issue. It's clearly not a part of Obama's campaign message and, given how fringe the idea is, about 1/100th less likely to surface than, say, the draft.

Thormir is correct, think of Wright as one of Cone's disciples.

Nice spin though on the "white enemy" Thormir --

"If God is not for us and against white people..."

I guess white people there isn't really white people, it's a symbol...

How is quoting Cone's own words spin? The passage I quoted explains his perspective quite well.

Nice cherry-picking of half-sentences, Furt, and a nice job passing off a quote from Cone as though it originated with Wright. Good guess, though. Learn a little, and you won't have to guess at all.

The text (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?pagewanted=1) of Obama's speech given today on race and religion. He begins addressing Rev. Wright specifically on p2.

I wonder how Jedd will react to this part....

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

"How is quoting Cone's own words spin?"

When you're not quoting his words but spinning an explanation of the quote --

"Thus, the "white enemy" to be destroyed is racism and oppression, not white people as such."

Since that sentence wasn't in quotes, I assume it was your spin on his quote. Unfortunately, his reference to God being against the "white people" cuts against your explanation that he was not referring to "white people as such."

I never stated the quote was Wrights. I said it was a good summary of his beliefs (since Wright is a Cone disciple).

I wonder how Jedd will react to this part....

He can believe whatever he wants... Even if the man agreed with everything Wright said... do you think he would commit political suicide and tell us he did?

His speech reaffirms the man we believe he is.

"How is quoting Cone's own words spin?"

When you're not quoting his words but spinning an explanation of the quote --

"Thus, the "white enemy" to be destroyed is racism and oppression, not white people as such."

Since that sentence wasn't in quotes, I assume it was your spin on his quote. Unfortunately, his reference to God being against the "white people" cuts against your explanation that he was not referring to "white people as such."

Hardly spin, simple paraphrasing one would think even you could understand. Cone says straight out that "To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are. … Being reconciled to God does not mean that one's skin is physically black." White and black are clearly symbolic terms in his writing. Furthermore, from my link (emphasis mine):
"I think that the time has come for black theologians and church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world. … For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups."
The real spin is finding this sort of thing radical and dangerous and tainting to Obama while finding "gays made God destroy New Orleans, and the Jews brought it on themselves" yawn-inducing.

I believe I addressed that if you read, his animosity is based on the FACT that black sharecroppers were purposely infected with Syphilus (sp) by the United states Public Health Service a service of the US goernment and were not told what was making them sick, were not treated for the disease but were allowed to suffer and die, this was done from the '50s through early '70s. Why? Because our government, run by whites, could get away with it.

So I think his suspicions are valid, even if incorrect.

This is just one example to exactly why I would not be surprised at anything our government did to us. They are no dumbies up there. They know very well how to manipulate large masses. I would not be surprised if they consult with head doctors that specialize in how to do it. lol

If I think my government cares about me, wants the best for me...I would be a fool to think that. Do I think any government does? no..lol Do I think I stand a better chance here than another country to persue my happiness? yes. Governments just want to own me...my sweat and my money and leave me enough to keep me in my cozy chair and not scream in their face.

Every so often a good politician gets in office and seems to actually care....I just have not seen one for a long while and they have done nothing but work on chipping(taking away rights, cutting education,giving to their good ole boys in the form of government contracts) away the normal percentage of what I call mine.

I guess when they start chipping away at folks who never thought they would get chipped away at or chipped so much maybe we will get out of our chairs? I wonder where our limits are? When we can't pay for own place? When we can't buy food? When we go to the hospital and there is no equipement or skilled people to take care of us? I guess everyone has different limits.

And when we do finally scream in their face are we going to have any power (sweat, knowledge, money) left that they will find us worth while to listen to? Or will they tell us there is nothing they can do because the government has no money? Will they just put up their 20 foot walls with barbwire fences and just let us duke it out?

I pray whoever gets in as president will be one that makes a difference. I say vote for anyone who wants to put money into educating AMERICAN citizens...ones that want live here. I want leverage when go toe to toe with our politicians.

It will be interesting in like another 100 years from now.

Why would Gay be an issue? Wouldn't a lot of Democrats think that's just fine?

Yes, calling someone gay is commonly used as a compliment.

"Dude, thats pretty gay."

"Thanks!"

Wright has an interesting defender: Mike Huckabee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Huck_defends_Wright.html).
"[Y]ou can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do," Huckabee says. "It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what ... Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable, years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.'"

Later, he defended Wright's anger, too:

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you — we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."
And it's still worth noting that Wright's comments have drawn far more fire than the comments of religious whight conservatives like Hagee, Falwell, and Robertson that the US deserves natural disasters (or even 9/11) because God condemns things that happen here (like people being gay) and who hope the world ends soon and want to take action they think will lead to that result.

Yes, calling someone gay is commonly used as a compliment.

"Dude, thats pretty gay."

"Thanks!"

Depends....in the 1950's it was a fair compliment, and that conversation would have been normal.

My point is, a person's sexual preferences shouldn't be any more relevant than the color of his/her skin.

It should be the content of his/her character that matters the most. Obama has proven himself to me, espically in how he has dealt with this particular issue. Lord knows we don't need more of the same old crap we've been getting from Washington for the past few decades.

A change is in order.

And it's still worth noting that Wright's comments have drawn far more fire than the comments of religious whight conservatives like Hagee, Falwell, and Robertson that the US deserves natural disasters (or even 9/11) because God condemns things that happen here (like people being gay) and who hope the world ends soon and want to take action they think will lead to that result.Maybe because none of those Falwells were the 20 year pastor of Bush, McCain, etc. and none of them tried to squiggle out of the relationship by calling them a 'crazy uncle' and denying they've said anything controversial. And I think Robertson at least apoligized for his 'Katrina was God's wraith on gays' comment. No such retraction for the 20 years of hate from Wright.

Heh, no such retraction from Obama for that either. Had Bush said, 'well, you have to understand where Robertson is coming from and why he dislikes gays ... blah blah. I don't personally believe those comments, but then we have to come together on this and work it out' ... you think the media would have let that pass? LMAO. Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy in all this.

Maybe because none of those Falwells were the 20 year pastor of Bush, McCain, etc. and none of them tried to squiggle out of the relationship by calling them a 'crazy uncle' and denying they've said anything controversial.
Right, they just embraced their support (even after McCain referred (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html) to Falwell and Robertson as "agents of intolerance" who he wouldn't pander to) instead of renouncing it. They aren't trying to squiggle out of anything; the Falwells and Hagees of the world are their allies, their extreme views regarded with a shrug. Bush and McCain are "honored" to have their support.
And I think Robertson at least apoligized for his 'Katrina was God's wraith on gays' comment. No such retraction for the 20 years of hate from Wright. Robertson, Falwell and the like have their decades of hate in their careers; Katrina was merely one manifestation. A handful of quotes from a couple sermons does not "20 years of hate" make. Many of the points Wright is being excoriated for are, once the provocative veneer is washed away, valid points of contention -- some of them even shared or exceeded by the Bush/McCain allies.
Heh, no such retraction from Obama for that either. Had Bush said, 'well, you have to understand where Robertson is coming from and why he dislikes gays ... blah blah. I don't personally believe those comments, but then we have to come together on this and work it out' ... you think the media would have let that pass? LMAO. Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy in all this.The point is, the media has let it all pass. Bush's relationship to the Dobsonites, his entire family's ties to Sun Myung Moon, McCain's embrace of those he once condemned and the complete lack of interest in anything their own pastors may have said over the years. Of course, McCain changes (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html) religions with the wind, so tracking down his pastor may be tricky.

Obama made his thoughts quite clear in his speech earlier this week. For McCain, it was just enough to say that "of course" he didn't agree with some things Hagee said. Issue over. Hilarious that you introduce a hypothetical in an attempt to prove your point when actual reality demonstrates otherwise.

Hipocracy :rolleyes:

I'm guessing what Akipt wants for a president is the kind of person that befriends no one that has a different viewpoint than his. If a friend says something that he doesn't agree with, he throws that person under a bus and never associates with them again.

denying they've said anything controversial

"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed....."

"Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country..."

" As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive..."

Yeah that's denying they were controversial.:rolleyes:

I disagree with an awful lot my pastor says and represents...of course, I'm only in that church because of my commitment to my wife...okay that's a nice way of saying she drags me there kicking and screaming. Maybe that's the case with Obama. :)

Maybe that's the case with Obama. It's obviously not, of course, but the point stands, and you illustrated quite well Obama's rejection of certain of Wright's views. More to the point, Obama gave one of the best speeches on race to be found in our political canon. I don't think it will be enough to fully recover his campaign from the Wright hit -- it's much easier to be up in arms about whatever it is his pastor said than to read or listen to a moderately long speech -- but over the next month perhaps the furor will die down.

As I've said before, it's not about Wright. It's about Obama.

Having your wife say "For the first time I'm proud of my country" is not going to win you a general election when we find out that you and your family have given over $22,000 in support of the racist hate filled cynicism of this church and its pastor's belief system. That's not guilt by association - that's active, material promotion.

His speech was a good one on race. But it was only half of the speech. The other half glossed over the Wright stuff as I suspected he would.

I'm sorry Thor, but listening to the full serman around 'white man gave us aids' isn't going to help the context. I get the context perfectly. His platform of post-racism and honest change falls flat as a pancake. He's no different than the others.

And I'm glad you find hyprocisy in it. It's astounding that you're willing to excoriate the Republicans and then ignore it when it's so blattantly done by your candidate by an even greater degree. Have fun with that.

And I'm glad you find hyprocisy in it. It's astounding that you're willing to excoriate the Republicans and then ignore it when it's so blattantly done by your candidate by an even greater degree. Have fun with that.
That stance kind of reminds me what some great satiric french comedian said some 20 years ago :
He was asking his audience if they knew why he was more than often making jokes about blacks, arabs or Belgium people (our "rednecks"), and not racists for example.

Simply because if he had the choice, he'd prefer not to upset
the majority.



I guess, in the end, that it's better to have your neightbor you often share a beer and barbecue with, to be a gay-hater, than having him hating white people.

Will Obama help reduce the deficit? Check

Will he get us out of Iraq? Check

Do I give a shit about religion, his, yours, or otherwise? Nope.

The fact that this is the only 'real' ammunition that the Repubs/Hillary supporters have against Obama speaks volumes. Let them waste their time harping on this shit while everyone with half a brain moves on to something with more substance.

while everyone with half a brain moves on to something with more substance.
If only that were a significant number of the voters.

Well, yeah. Most Americans are rather stupid.

Eventually the media will run out of fodder for this dumb story. Then they'll give the http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t257/evanluerding/emot-downswords.gif America crowd something else to salivate over.

P.S. Is that avatar of the poisoned guy who died in Britain? That is beyond creepy, and rather weird.

"That is beyond creepy, and rather weird."

If I had to guess, I think it's a stab at our local Putinista who supports the fellow that arranged that poisoning.

Fair enough.

I'm going to have to find some good pictures of mangled Iraqi civilians, so I can make an avatar to take a stab at our local Bushites who supported the fellow that arranged that... liberation.

As I've said before, it's not about Wright. It's about Obama.For me it's about the media and the disparity of coverage between Obama-Wright and the other political and religious figures mentioned.
Having your wife say "For the first time I'm proud of my country" is not going to win you a general election when we find out that you and your family have given over $22,000 in support of the racist hate filled cynicism of this church and its pastor's belief system. That's not guilt by association - that's active, material promotion.No, what will win an election is charisma, the consistent strength of a message, policy proposals that are in tune with the desires of the electorate, an opposing party that has failed completely in its sort of attempt at governance, and running against an opponent who can't figure out his Irans and al-Qaedas. Obama has definitely promoted and supported his church and pastor, in large part because -- as he stated -- there was far, far more to the church environment over 20 years than several questionable or false quotes from Wright. Presumably, you continue to support the Republican party actively and materially despite the massive bigotry of its past and present for similar reasons.
His speech was a good one on race. But it was only half of the speech. The other half glossed over the Wright stuff as I suspected he would. I don't think roughly 20% of the speech is "glossing over" the matter. Obama addressed it head on and denied nothing, and I've found nothing in his various presentations to suggest that he buys into the several controversial or incorrect ideas being tossed around. We haven't, for example, found Obama talking about AIDS as something created by the US to wipe out blacks (and besides, we all know God made AIDS to kill gays -- just ask McCain's religious allies).
I'm sorry Thor, but listening to the full serman around 'white man gave us aids' isn't going to help the context. I get the context perfectly. His platform of post-racism and honest change falls flat as a pancake. He's no different than the others.You're far too easily befuddled then, to think that a sermon Obama neither signed off on or has shown any sign of echoing is somehow a roadblock to a career spent pursuing exactly those platforms. Obama hasn't said word one about this, and while McCain is yammering on ignorantly about vaccines and autism Obama is catching flak for being friends with a guy who has at least one really crazy idea. Hilarious.
And I'm glad you find hyprocisy in it. It's astounding that you're willing to excoriate the Republicans and then ignore it when it's so blattantly done by your candidate by an even greater degree. Have fun with that.Actually, I'm excoriating the media. The Republicans fail for a host of reasons, including being tied to truly insane religious people, but I'd be content to call it a draw if the media bothered to cover these issues with greater equality.

And I have to wonder just how you're counting degrees. Wright thinks that the US made AIDS to kill black people. McCain's friends think that God made AIDS to kill gays and that a high sodomy system over the Midwest could mean hailstorms. Wright thinks 9/11 was the result of American foreign policy and ignoring racial issues; McCain's friends blamed it on gays, lesbians, feminists, the ACLU and God. Someone is astounding here, but it's certainly not me.

If I had to guess, I think it's a stab at our local Putinista who supports the fellow that arranged that poisoning.

Its awesome, its like porn to me.

Throw in some Stalin Era mass graves and ill have to change my shorts.

Presumably, you continue to support the Republican party actively and materially despite the massive bigotry of its past and present for similar reasons.


Ouch.

Seems some study needs to be done about the Democrats and their positions regarding slavery, civil rights, and bigotry; they were the party of massive bigotry for most of our history.

Yes, if you go back far enough, when bigotry and racism were the norm rather than the exception. My comment was more geared to periods and attitudes remembered and participated in by people currently alive -- I won't be criticizing someone here for living in Alabama or whatever because it used to be a slave state.

To add, it might also be worth mentioning that I am not a member of any political party.

You're far too easily befuddled then, to think that a sermon Obama neither signed off on or has shown any sign of echoing is somehow a roadblock to a career spent pursuing exactly those platforms.Then why is he calling his grandmother 'a typical white person' in the present tense? You know, the one who called him a n---ger and such?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-grandmother-typic_b_92601.html

Look, I never said he believed this stuff personally. In fact, I think I pointed that out earlier this week that I didn't believe he does. It's all the two-faced and empty politics that he's bringing to the table. But the cracks are showing and in some things being said, it's shining a light on his beliefs and background that the media never bothered to do.

Of course we could always talk about his earmarks for his wife's hospital and Rezko if you want... Anyway, I was never going to vote for the guy. Perhaps you should spend all your time ignoring what I have to say and concentrate on what Kelraz thinks since he mentioned earlier in this thread being turned off by Obama lately. /shrug

It's all the two-faced and empty politics that he's bringing to the table

Welcome to the American Political System. They're all two-faced and mostly empty...to get to this point in this country they pretty much have to be. It's a matter trying to figure what they are going to do in light of what you believe is the best course....the lesser of two evils.

I know McCain is evil just with his association to Beazelbush. :devil

Not sure the level of evil in Clinton and Obama.

I know McCain is evil just with his association to Beazelbush. :devil

Not sure the level of evil in Clinton and Obama.
Isn't there a saying about it being better to deal with the evil you know rather than the evil you don't?

I'd say if you think Mccain is bad by his association with Beazelbush (lol), what does Clinton's association with the Bubba of Darkness, her husband, mean?

That's why I think Obama is a good choice. He doesn't seem to have ties to either "dynasty", other than being a Democrat.

Yes, if you go back far enough, when bigotry and racism were the norm rather than the exception. My comment was more geared to periods and attitudes remembered and participated in by people currently alive -- I won't be criticizing someone here for living in Alabama or whatever because it used to be a slave state.

To add, it might also be worth mentioning that I am not a member of any political party.

Of course not Thor, it's easier to make harsh commentary and pretend to be above the fray if you don't commit.

Takes courage to jump in there and try to make changes happen in the party of your choice.

Takes courage to jump in there and try to make changes happen in the party of your choice.

Do you really think by self-identifying with a certain party that you are doing something more than someone who doesn't? Who is trying to make changes happen? It sure as hell isn't the politicians in power, and although I love the discussion, supporting your party on a message board doesn't really amount to much.

I am not registered with either major party. They are both full of shit, and on the issues that really matter their views are similar enough that it's not worth slaving myself to one or the other.

I am not registered with either major party. They are both full of shit, and on the issues that really matter their views are similar enough that it's not worth slaving myself to one or the other.

/tip of the cap

Exactly my stance, since the '90 elections and subsequent betrayal of principles on the part of both parties.

Of course not Thor, it's easier to make harsh commentary and pretend to be above the fray if you don't commit.

Takes courage to jump in there and try to make changes happen in the party of your choice.
I've considered it often but am not fond of the NC Dems. The former speaker was a mini-Delay (only now in prison), another Dem just got yanked out of the House (1st time in 100 years) by vote of the assembly, and there was a 3rd a couple years ago busted for various things. They do some okay work here and there, but I'm not fond of them.

Maybe they just need me! But between work and school I'm a little occupied, and it'll only get worse if I get into UNC.

Then why is he calling his grandmother 'a typical white person' in the present tense? You know, the one who called him a n---ger and such?
Dunno, but I suspect that Obama feels that many white people are nervous around unfamiliar black people. If he went on along this vein, he might agree with the reverse, as when he spoke of black and white forms of resentment in his speech.
Of course we could always talk about his earmarks for his wife's hospital and Rezko if you want... Anyway, I was never going to vote for the guy. Perhaps you should spend all your time ignoring what I have to say and concentrate on what Kelraz thinks since he mentioned earlier in this thread being turned off by Obama lately. /shrug
Obviously I haven't ignored what you've had to say; I've engaged it quite thoroughly. I have three candidates to choose from currently. McCain is simply out. His multiple reversals -- starting with the pandering to the extreme religious right -- are quite the turn off, and he really seems to have no idea about...anything, really. Iraq. Economics. Health care. No clue at all.

Hillary has a wealth of issues: old ones I'd just as soon not spend the next 4 years revisiting through media or Republican dingbats and a campaign I've found unpleasant.

So that leaves Obama. He has policies I like, is a smart man, and while imperfect in this way or that he does bring something new to the table. He wasn't my first choice at the start, but he represents a clean break from the failures of the last 8 years and, I think, will do more to bring this country together than his competitors (Wright or, as it stands now, no Wright).

So apparently...

State Department: Someone snooped in Obama's passport file


(CNN) -- On three occasions since January, Sen. Barack Obama's passport file was looked at by three different contract workers, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
art.2039.obama.gi.jpg

Sen. Barack Obama's passport file was breached three times since January, the State Department said.

The contractors accessed information in the file in an unauthorized way, he said.

Two contractors were fired and one was disciplined by the contractor's company, McCormack said.

He said the contractors are not linked.

The State Department hires contractors to design, build and maintain their systems and help employees with searches. McCormack said two of the contractors in the Obama case were "low-level" personnel and the other was in a mid-level position with no management role.

The breach seems like "imprudent curiosity" among the contract workers, said McCormack, adding that senior management at the State Department was not aware of the incidents until Thursday afternoon. Breaches occurred January 9, February 21 and March 14.

Obama's campaign is asking for a complete investigation to find out who looked at Obama's passport file and why.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a statement.

"Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, "If it's true, it's reprehensible, and the Bush administration has a responsibility to get to the bottom of it."

The White House declined comment Thursday evening, just hours after the State Department upper management learned of the breach.

State Department officials say Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was told Thursday what happened and that she told her staff she wanted a full investigation.

The department would not speculate whether the information had been shared with anyone else.

"That obviously is something we are investigating," said Under Secretary of State Pat Kennedy. "I have no reason to believe they did, but I certainly am not going to be dismissive of what is a serious and valid question."

Kennedy said he will brief Obama's senior staff on Friday.

The news was reminiscent of a breach of Bill Clinton's passport information during the 1992 presidential campaign. The FBI launched an investigation after the State Department reported that someone had ripped out pages from his passport file from the late 1960s and '70s.

The department concluded that a search of Clinton's passport records was an attempt to influence the presidential election, reportedly by trying to show that Clinton tried to seek citizenship in another country to avoid the draft. Clinton was running against President George H.W. Bush.

Then-State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk found no evidence the White House ordered department staffers to dig for political dirt in Clinton's passport files. However, Funk said the White House probably knew it was happening.

Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement late Thursday.

"I am deeply troubled that State Department contract employees sought access to Sen. Barack Obama's passport files. Firing or disciplining those responsible is an important first step. But we need to understand why these employees had access to this information in the first place, why they sought the information, and why it took over two months for this matter to come to light. I urge the Secretary of State to promptly refer this matter to the State Department Inspector General for investigation."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html

I suspect that Obama feels that many white people are nervous around unfamiliar black people. Any wonder? Apparently it's perfectly okay and quite common for black people to think just about every wrong in the world is caused by me and other white people.

Any wonder? Apparently it's perfectly okay and quite common for black people to think just about every wrong in the world is caused by me and other white people.

Isn't it though?

Here is Reverend Wright's partial transcript from his sermon after 9/11, along with description of what he said after this speech, Along with the reporters opinion afterward.


As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.


One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

So stay tuned.


http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

In trying to give me context, you've only shown that you have none yourself.

What I can't understand is why in the world anyone is lending this any attention or credence. This whole "controversy" seems so amazingly inconsequential compared to what's currently going on in our country and the rest of the world.

It reminds me a lot of the sham racism charges aimed at Ron Paul a couple months ago. It's tempting to say that Obama supporters got what was coming to them, for previously supporting the same type of junk journalism that's burning them now.

However, wouldn't it be better for everyone if we'd just ignore these ancillary issues and take our candidates to task on issues of substance?

However, wouldn't it be better for everyone if we'd just ignore these ancillary issues and take our candidates to task on issues of substance?
Amen.

But since when politics are about substance (especially during election year)?

Obviously. Why argue about increasing deficits, world hunger, and Cold War 2.0 when you can talk about garbage like this?

Unfortunately, Akipt and the like seem to scour the interwebs day in and out looking for any tidbit of news that will lend credence to their myopic worldviews.

Guyz, Iraq is doin better, srsly! (Circa 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
by Akipt

Obama sounds like osama - is he terrorist?!
by Akipt

Woot stimulus plan! now i can buy more deer stands
by Akipt

But since when politics are about substance (especially during election year)?
I would say it's completely up to us.

If we didn't give the political paparazzi such great ratings, it would quickly cease to exist.

Well, for years we've been conditioned to respond to the glitz and glam (ooo shiny!) that is thrown at us by the candidates.

Substance? Who needs that? Espically when people like Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears are considered to be substantial by today's masses?

Nowdays candidates have to be part rock star, just to even get any attention...

Nowdays candidates have to be part rock star, just to even get any attention...

Just made me think...

Imagine Marilyn Manson running for public office

Imagine Marilyn Manson

Great! Now I have THAT image in my head.:o

Step away from the trenchcoat and shotgun Ailwon...

I find it interesting that Ainwein was so quick to grab hold of some threads Akipt put together to make the point, while ignoring that hate spewing wretch Jedd for doing the exact same thing, in an even more vitriolic manner.

Does that mean that it is okay to spew garbage as long as the garbage spewer supports your candidate and positions?

I have had plenty of run-ins with Akipt over the years over our differing opinions, but I have never once considered him to be a racist, hateful waste of oxygen which is what Jedd has so cheerfully given me cause to feel toward him. But he is an Obama supporter, so all the garbage he wraps himself up in is acceptable.

Glad to see the fair and balanced approach works for both sides the same way. You Democrats are just as fucked up as the Republicans.

I find it interesting that Ainwein was so quick to grab hold of some threads Akipt put together to make the point, while ignoring that hate spewing wretch Jedd for doing the exact same thing, in an even more vitriolic manner.

Does that mean that it is okay to spew garbage as long as the garbage spewer supports your candidate and positions?

I have had plenty of run-ins with Akipt over the years over our differing opinions, but I have never once considered him to be a racist, hateful waste of oxygen which is what Jedd has so cheerfully given me cause to feel toward him. But he is an Obama supporter, so all the garbage he wraps himself up in is acceptable.

Glad to see the fair and balanced approach works for both sides the same way. You Democrats are just as fucked up as the Republicans.

I am quite curious as to what posts you have of mine that I "spewed hate"

I seem to recall that the hate spewing came at me from some of you people.

I find it interesting that Ainwein was so quick to grab hold of some threads Akipt put together to make the point, while ignoring that hate spewing wretch Jedd for doing the exact same thing, in an even more vitriolic manner.

Does that mean that it is okay to spew garbage as long as the garbage spewer supports your candidate and positions?

I have had plenty of run-ins with Akipt over the years over our differing opinions, but I have never once considered him to be a racist, hateful waste of oxygen which is what Jedd has so cheerfully given me cause to feel toward him. But he is an Obama supporter, so all the garbage he wraps himself up in is acceptable.

Glad to see the fair and balanced approach works for both sides the same way. You Democrats are just as fucked up as the Republicans.

Let us not forget Ainwein's hyper conservative stance just a few years ago. I don't think he's the stereotypical "Democrat" by any stretch of the imagination.

I find it interesting that Ainwein was so quick to grab hold of some threads Akipt put together to make the point, while ignoring that hate spewing wretch Jedd for doing the exact same thing, in an even more vitriolic manner.
Jedd's activity in this thread has mainly confined itself to posting news articles. Also, the community goes after Jedd on an almost daily basis. The comments Jedd has posted in the past that people find offensive aren't that different from anything he posts now. /shrug

I tend to ignore Jedd altogether, it makes reading these forums more enjoyable :)

I tend to ignore Jedd altogether, it makes reading these forums more enjoyable :)

Most people don't like hearing what they disagree with... It is all nice and safe living in a bubble of ignorance.

I don't read many of the Jedd v. US posts that muck up the boards these days. From the ones I have read, I've never seen anything from Jedd that strikes me as overtly racist, or completely lost on logic. I'm guessing "hate-filled" = "not pro-Israel" in this case.

If someone wants to point me to some of this offending material, I'll gladly reconsider. Otherwise I'm not just going to jump on the Jedd hate bandwagon.

Most people don't like hearing what they disagree with...

Not necessarily.....and not saying I would not want to hear what you have to say because that is not the case. But if you start to hear something you do not agree with it is always a good idea to shut it off. If you hear something enough times and long enough we can believe it. Let us not forget that is why companies spend millions (or is it billions?) advertising, it is proven to work very well. :(

Not necessarily.....and not saying I would not want to hear what you have to say because that is not the case. But if you start to hear something you do not agree with it is always a good idea to shut it off. If you hear something enough times and long enough we can believe it. Let us not forget that is why companies spend millions (or is it billions?) advertising, it is proven to work very well. :(

Aye, but I was posting in regards to discussion and such, not advertisements. Sure, If I was making thread after thread of propaganda (ex. Video's, Pictures, etc) then ignoring me would be akin to shutting off the television.

However, when one is in a certain place to discuss issues, shrugging off someone's issues because you disagree without refuting it is generally a sign of a weak stance.

Jedd's activity in this thread has mainly confined itself to posting news articles. Also, the community goes after Jedd on an almost daily basis. The comments Jedd has posted in the past that people find offensive aren't that different from anything he posts now. /shrugJedd's become the whipping boy at this point. Sadly I've seen y'all fight with him for saying the same things some of you would have said in a different thread. Which is not to say that everything Jedd says is brilliant or well thought out (sorry Jedd), but then again, it's not as if I haven't muddled the hell out of a few posts either.

Still waiting for those racist comments.

Still waiting for those racist comments.


If you are talking to me, post #113 of this thread should be sufficient.

If you are talking to me, post #113 of this thread should be sufficient.

That is pretty weak... As I have never blamed the "white man" for anything. I am considered white ya know.

That is pretty weak... As I have never blamed the "white man" for anything. I am considered white ya know.


I do believe that Iranians and Armenians are the purest forms of Caucasian.

I do believe that Iranians and Armenians are the purest forms of Caucasian.

Aye, I am Aryan

Iran = "Land of the Aryans" :)

Its great america is hte melting pot. We fight for the jews and anyone else in the cultral pot can stir some power to back. World police 4tw.

Lets give Europe and china russia free riegn over policing the world and see if it gets better. Me let me sip my drink and figure a way to produce products made int eh us sale again. I believe in quality still, which failing in the US caused the mess letting mid asia reproduce our products cheaper without patents.

maybe ill have to pcik my organics crops by hand and sell them at crazy prices.

We arent, and never have been a melting pot.

http://www.sonyasklaroff.com/images.htm

Salad Bowl, dude.. Salad Bowl.

In your Mother Russia it's a salad bowl, but here in the USA they don't call me and my family Cherokee-Irish-French-English-Scottish-German-Dutch-Americans.

Although I've heard lately that I'm a Typical White Person.

I have had plenty of run-ins with Akipt over the years over our differing opinions, but I have never once considered him to be a racist, hateful waste of oxygen which is what Jedd has so cheerfully given me cause to feel toward him. But he is an Obama supporter, so all the garbage he wraps himself up in is acceptable.
Because of Any wonder? Apparently it's perfectly okay and quite common for black people to think just about every wrong in the world is caused by me and other white people."

Isn't it though?I'm still pretty sure most of you just groupthink your way onto the Jedd hate train.

I'm still pretty sure most of you just groupthink your way onto the Jedd hate train.

Nah, I hate to disappoint ya on this, but Jedd has given me plenty of opportunity to consider him a waste of oxygen. And as far as hate, that is not the issue, as it takes as much emotional energy to hate as it does to love, and jedd is nowhere near significant enough to warrant that expenditure.

My disgust with jedd stems from his phoniness, and his anti-American pro-Iranian diatribes. He claims that those who are unable to refute his ideas and choose to ignore him are living in bubbles of ignorance (his words), and yet I have never seen him engage in a debate on these forums. He has his viewpoint and you either agree or are wrong.

Now he claims to be an Aryan. Which Aryan is he claiming to be a part of, the Aryan Brotherhood of the white supremacy movement? or the Aryan race Hitler was attempting to build as a superpower? Neither are too positive in my book. But googling Aryan does not give a lot of positive images.

He is a typical Berkley-esque bitch that has been given a life by his country that most people in other countries can only dream of, where his dreams can be made reality, and his potential almost limitless; and ,he would rather shit on that and whine about past wrongs done by our governments than actually invest of his time and energy by getting involved in the process and attempting to make change within the system. He is a wannabe in the greatest sense of the word. He wannabe this and he wannabe that, but he instead sits in front of his computer doing his cut and paste arguments in a vain attempt to be somebody that he will never achieve.

He could use his citizenship to become a part of change, but instead sits in his pathetic sense of grandiose self-importance pointing fingers at others as being wrong because they view their country differently.

If these bumbling fools currently mismanaging our country are foolish enough to take some action against Iran, jedd's diatribes against our country will mark him in my eyes as an enemy deserving of a charge of treason.

That is not group think, but my own decision. Whether it is right or wrong, agreed with or argued against as being terribly wrong, it is my decision. He insults everyone who has ever fought to preserve this country and it's ideals, whether the fight was wrong or right in the long run.

Sorry for the running-on post, but we had a good bit of wine with our Easter dinner today.

I do believe that Iranians and Armenians are the purest forms of Caucasian.

Unable to complete post, so text removed.

Was trying to upload a pic of the gertjonnys to contest Rover's assertion of who the purest caucasians were.

These are the purest caucasians I have seen, I think.

My disgust with jedd stems from his phoniness, and his anti-American pro-Iranian diatribes. He claims that those who are unable to refute his ideas and choose to ignore him are living in bubbles of ignorance (his words), and yet I have never seen him engage in a debate on these forums. He has his viewpoint and you either agree or are wrong.his phoninessWhatever that means.

anti-American pro-Iranian diatribesBingo.

Again, I would like to see any quotes of his that are absolutely ridiculous or out of line.

Most of us on these forums are Americans. There is going to be an obvious pro-American slant on most debate that takes place here. What bothers me is that a lot of you do not take the time to take these inherent biases into account. You can be a proud American, and question the ethics of our actions.

I know someone is going to say, "But we think Iraq is bad!" Yes, five years after the fact you have realized that Iraq was a stupid decision. What about right when it was happening? If I came here in 2004 saying a bunch of pro-Iraqii shit I would get the EXACT same response you give Jedd now. What if we invade Iran and it turns into another debacle? Are you going to pat yourself on the back 10 years from now when you finally begin to shy away from your convictions, just as most of you have done with this current war?

As for his debating merits. Numerous times I have called people out for personally attacking him during debate when he offers nothing of the sort. You let your prejudice against him cloud your judgment.

He has his viewpoint and you either agree or are wrong.The irony in this statement is astounding.

He is a typical Berkley-esque bitch that has been given a life by his country that most people in other countries can only dream of, where his dreams can be made reality, and his potential almost limitless; and ,he would rather shit on that and whine about past wrongs done by our governments than actually invest of his time and energy by getting involved in the process and attempting to make change within the system. He is a wannabe in the greatest sense of the word. He wannabe this and he wannabe that, but he instead sits in front of his computer doing his cut and paste arguments in a vain attempt to be somebody that he will never achieve.What the fuck does this even mean? This is a debate forum. We debate politics. Are you insinuating that someone with a pro-American view is 'getting involved and attempting to make change with the system'? This whole paragraph is just beyond childish. What is this 'change' shit? You sound like Barack Obama. Do you really think you're doing something important by representing AMERIKA!!11 in these threads? How do you know what he is doing, trying to do, or will achieve?

He could use his citizenship to become a part of change, but instead sits in his pathetic sense of grandiose self-importance pointing fingers at others as being wrong because they view their country differently.THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO TO HIM TOO.

If these bumbling fools currently mismanaging our country are foolish enough to take some action against Iran, jedd's diatribes against our country will mark him in my eyes as an enemy deserving of a charge of treason.You're an adult. Seriously.

In your Mother Russia it's a salad bowl, but here in the USA they don't call me and my family Cherokee-Irish-French-English-Scottish-German-Dutch-Americans.

America isnt your little world.

Simply put. Melting Pot (http://dca.boozle.net/nuremburg.jpg) = Conformity. There is no more unAmerican concept in my mind. We are a Salad Bowl (http://www.epnewyork.com/landscape/little_italy_full.jpg), where we all retain our individuality and that makes the whole so much better.


In Melting Pot, we all lose our individual identities and become part of the whole. We throw away our old cultures and embrace the Nation. I know the idea of this has your nipples hard.. but calm down. It isnt the United States. And it never will be.

France ascribes more to a melting pot theory, in that when you come to the France, you expected to embrace French Culture and French Ideals. If you don't, you never enter into that society. Such things are seen as Muslim Headcloths in the schools, Insistence on French Language uber alles, and in the riots in the ethnic ghettos on the outskirts of French cities, and the burning cars.

America is Little Italy, and Chinatown, and Mississippi Delta Blues, and Chicano, and Soul Food, and The Irish American Club and the Polish Neighborhoods and the fact that almost every town in the Northeast has 5 or 6 churchs that cater to one post immigrant group or another.

The reality is that there is no American "Culture" to assimilate into. People come from countries with cultural traditions 1000s of years old, and even generations later, they hold on to them.
Go up to 10 people on the street and ask them, "what are you". (Whatever)-American will be the response overwhelmingly, even from 3rd or 4th generation Americans. Thats because the nature of America is "Leave me the fuck alone and let me make some money to take care of my family"
THAT is the American Dream. And that sums up American Culture. See, because the point is we dont need that. We are joined by the universality of desire. All men and women want the same things. The Irish and the Mexican, the Catholic and the Protestant, the Black and the White.

So once again.


So anyway... this morning my Italian Dad and Polish/French Mom brought over Babka Bread and Kielbasa. How do you all celebrate Easter?


Although I've heard lately that I'm a Typical White Person.

You are.















circa 1905

I think Ainwein is in love with Jedd!!!

Good post Bylimet. Its is that black and white with Jedd....you agree or your wrong. Thats his debate style.

I've heard the term Gumbo, which is better than Salad imo. In a salad the items are individual and able to be separated and all taste differently. In a gumbo there are many different ingredients that flavor the whole while retaining their individuality. Besides salads are too healthy :(

Nah, I hate to disappoint ya on this, but Jedd has given me plenty of opportunity to consider him a waste of oxygen. And as far as hate, that is not the issue, as it takes as much emotional energy to hate as it does to love, and jedd is nowhere near significant enough to warrant that expenditure.

Yet it is easier to hate one who disagrees with you, then it is to love them.

My disgust with jedd stems from his phoniness, and his anti-American pro-Iranian diatribes. He claims that those who are unable to refute his ideas and choose to ignore him are living in bubbles of ignorance (his words), and yet I have never seen him engage in a debate on these forums. He has his viewpoint and you either agree or are wrong.

Phoniness? I will leave that for you to describe how I am phony.

Simple fact is that if you cannot refute something I post, and instead resort to verbally bashing me, that your stance is not strong. It is up to you to provide the material then to show that I am wrong and that you are right.

A simple example of this is when we speak about Hezbollah. I repeatedly refer some of you guys to our own use of Satellites/Proxies which use acts of Terror against civilians to further our agenda when trying to explain my point, yet I am labeled Anti-American for daring to "go there".

Instead of taking the time to try and prove that we are justified in doing the same thing we claim is wrong, or that they are doing something different. Nothing is offered but insults. I engage in many debates here my friend, the only reason it doesn't seem so is that someone hijacks it and makes it a bash Jedd thread.

Thormir is a perfect example of someone who can argue the point very well when he believes I am wrong. Akipt, and Fandros(though Fandros is much better now then before) not so much.

Now he claims to be an Aryan. Which Aryan is he claiming to be a part of, the Aryan Brotherhood of the white supremacy movement? or the Aryan race Hitler was attempting to build as a superpower? Neither are too positive in my book. But googling Aryan does not give a lot of positive images.

Definition of Iran = "Land of the Aryans"
That you looked further into that then me showing my "whiteish" roots, in defense of someone accusing me of racism is laughable.

He is a typical Berkley-esque bitch that has been given a life by his country that most people in other countries can only dream of, where his dreams can be made reality, and his potential almost limitless; and ,he would rather shit on that and whine about past wrongs done by our governments than actually invest of his time and energy by getting involved in the process and attempting to make change within the system. He is a wannabe in the greatest sense of the word. He wannabe this and he wannabe that, but he instead sits in front of his computer doing his cut and paste arguments in a vain attempt to be somebody that he will never achieve.

The part where you pretend to know me is great... First of all, No one ever gave me shit. I have worked my ass off to build and run my business. My dreams are not subject of our discussions. The topics at hand are, and your inability to stay on topic or your aspirations of tearing me down make every discussion about me rather then the topic.

Show me where I entered a topic by bashing the poster rather then posting my stance on the topic. Such ridiculousness is done to me on a regular basis. If you don't like my stance, either don't post, or post why I am wrong. I have conceded many times when I have been found wrong, however it seems to always go unnoticed. Just the other post or thread, I conceded that Obama's pastor thing was just as bad as McCain's connections rather then not being bad at all.

He could use his citizenship to become a part of change, but instead sits in his pathetic sense of grandiose self-importance pointing fingers at others as being wrong because they view their country differently.

Excuse me... but what do you do differently? If we are to judge by exactly what we know of each other from posting on anonymous message boards, you are just the same loser who posts his problems with Bush and our government and does nothing but point fingers. Your stance on this is once again Laughable.

If these bumbling fools currently mismanaging our country are foolish enough to take some action against Iran, jedd's diatribes against our country will mark him in my eyes as an enemy deserving of a charge of treason.

And that my friend is where the problem lies.... Not with me, but with you for taking my right to freedom of speech and trampling it with charges of treason. Our country has done a lot of wrong and I am less safe because of it. If I want to speak about it, I will do so. Whenever and wherever I want. That is my right as an American, and your hate is something I will gladly accept to defend the America I want to see again.

That is not group think, but my own decision. Whether it is right or wrong, agreed with or argued against as being terribly wrong, it is my decision. He insults everyone who has ever fought to preserve this country and it's ideals, whether the fight was wrong or right in the long run.

I insult everyone who has ever made decisions which have led to the harming of this country, and slow decline of our honor and respectability. I have never and will never blame a man for fighting to defend this country, nor for being used to commit atrocities they cannot understand. However I will hold those who pull the strings accountable. Got a problem with that? lets discuss it.

I know someone is going to say, "But we think Iraq is bad!" Yes, five years after the fact you have realized that Iraq was a stupid decision. What about right when it was happening? If I came here in 2004 saying a bunch of pro-Iraqii shit I would get the EXACT same response you give Jedd now. What if we invade Iran and it turns into another debacle? Are you going to pat yourself on the back 10 years from now when you finally begin to shy away from your convictions, just as most of you have done with this current war?

Funny thing is Ainwein... True story.

Back before we invaded Iraq, I was a frequent poster on the Ayro forums. For my stance on the Iraq war, I was called a Terrorist, Anti-American, Evil, Traitor.

The only people that backed me up were the Europeans who understood where I was coming from, and respected my ability as an American to see how stupid we were acting.

Years later... Iraq was a mistake, I was right... and now that the talk of Iran is coming up again, it all happens again full circle.

Now I am a terrorist, Anti-American, Idiot, waste of space/air.

The problem is some people never learn from history, and are very quick to give the benefit of the doubt to their country again because of their love of said country. I show my love for this country in a different way. By taking the benefit of the doubt away, and asking for full disclosure.

Yet I am Anti-American because I post the positives of another country, while simultaneously denouncing a ridiculous pro war stance against them. You may not like Iran, but quite frankly if we are to post all the positives and negatives, the truth and the lies even, they have done much less in this world then us to deserve hate. Call this an Anti-Americna stance if you wish... You only show why you should not be taken seriously.

(most of this response was not in response to Ainwein)

I think Ainwein is in love with Jedd!!!

Good post Bylimet. Its is that black and white with Jedd....you agree or your wrong. Thats his debate style.

Quite the opposite... Either I agree or I am Anti-American.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ainwein http://ayonae.ro/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ayonae.ro/showthread.php?p=136673#post136673)
I know someone is going to say, "But we think Iraq is bad!" Yes, five years after the fact you have realized that Iraq was a stupid decision. What about right when it was happening? If I came here in 2004 saying a bunch of pro-Iraqii shit I would get the EXACT same response you give Jedd now. What if we invade Iran and it turns into another debacle? Are you going to pat yourself on the back 10 years from now when you finally begin to shy away from your convictions, just as most of you have done with this current war?

Funny thing is Ainwein... True story.

Back before we invaded Iraq, I was a frequent poster on the Ayro forums. For my stance on the Iraq war, I was called a Terrorist, Anti-American, Evil, Traitor.

The only people that backed me up were the Europeans who understood where I was coming from, and respected my ability as an American to see how stupid we were acting.I completely forgot about that. This is 100% true.

Good post Bylimet. Its is that black and white with Jedd....you agree or your wrong. Thats his debate style.As opposed to what? What you really mean is "Jedd doesn't agree with me or the majority of the posters on this board, so he is wrong". He stands for what he believes, and you do the same. You will not make concessions, and neither will he. How in the world does that make him any different, much less worse than you? (Hint: It doesn't)

If any of you have ever given objective, analytic thought to some of the arguments he puts forth I would be extremely surprised. All I see is a bunch of knee-jerk retardation that feeds off of itself.

Since you want to poke fun at academics, here is a little exercise. You berate Jedd for his lack of debating skills. Would any of the arguments you put forth be accepted in a classroom setting? 99% of the time, the answer is no.

A typical response to Jedd reads like this:
Whatever. We dont expect much more from our local putinista.
Jedd doesn't even debate well. He doesnt use reason.
Why dont you go back to Iran you fucking moron
black and white! black and white!



Jedd has different political views than you. As do I, and everyone else on this board. If you are so convinced on the merit of your ideas, they should stand alone by themselves. The fact that grown adults are on here trashing him day in, and day out, with what can only be described as barely-contained rage is really quite pathetic. I don't care what your political views are, when you start posting garbage like this you become a complete moron in my book.


If these bumbling fools currently mismanaging our country are foolish enough to take some action against Iran, jedd's diatribes against our country will mark him in my eyes as an enemy deserving of a charge of treason.I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears. I'm sure I'll get some retarded jokes tossed at me by people twice my senior. (It makes you look very smart)

I just want you all to remember, the majority of the people on this planet do not reside in America.

P.S. I'm going to see if I can dig through the internet archives for some old posts by Jedd circa Iraq invasion. I hope to God I catch one of you. :devil

Whatever that means.
Again, I would like to see any quotes of his that are absolutely ridiculous or out of line.


Ain, you are missing the point of what I said. Those statements are my opinion. I am not offering them for debate, or looking at having to prove them. They are an opinion, and nothing more.

You have some need to defend jedd, and your reasons for that are your own. I would not think to either praise or condemn you for that.

As for me, I have both agreed with and even given positive feedback to jedd at times in the past. Over time, however, his posts have become too much for me to accept. Don't expect me to sit and give you cut and paste crap of why I reached the opinion I now hold. Reread his posts over the past year, and if you still think he is worthy of your defense, then you and I simply disagree on our perspectives.

I searched Ain, All I found was posts from after I was banned always bringing me up in the political discussions. Funny thing is I was pretty popular when I left... albeit for the crazy long hate threads I would attract.

Thormir also thought I was a European!!!!!

I

If any of you have ever given objective, analytic thought to some of the arguments he puts forth I would be extremely surprised. All I see is a bunch of knee-jerk retardation that feeds off of itself.


The fact that grown adults are on here trashing him day in, and day out, with what can only be described as barely-contained rage is really quite pathetic.


I'm going to see if I can dig through the internet archives for some old posts by Jedd circa Iraq invasion. I hope to God I catch one of you. :devil

When you are done with your search, please also share the posts of those of us who have agreed with jedd in varying posts, in particular with regard to Iran and it's rights as a sovereign nation.

And also, can you share some of these "barely-contained rage" posts? I agree that I have seen some folks post what I might "assume" was in anger, but I am not sure I can detect what you describe from black and white text.

Ain, you are missing the point of what I said. Those statements are my opinion. I am not offering them for debate, or looking at having to prove them. They are an opinion, and nothing more.

You have some need to defend jedd, and your reasons for that are your own. I would not think to either praise or condemn you for that.

As for me, I have both agreed with and even given positive feedback to jedd at times in the past. Over time, however, his posts have become too much for me to accept. Don't expect me to sit and give you cut and paste crap of why I reached the opinion I now hold. Reread his posts over the past year, and if you still think he is worthy of your defense, then you and I simply disagree on our perspectives.

Then what you are saying is that your opinion of me brings you to the point where you feel you have to bash me as a person in your posts? Why post at all? Do you need to bash me to have a nice day?

Are the forums here for us to discuss the topics or to bash each other for how we feel about one another?

Nah, I hate to disappoint ya on this, but Jedd has given me plenty of opportunity to consider him a waste of oxygen. And as far as hate, that is not the issue, as it takes as much emotional energy to hate as it does to love, and jedd is nowhere near significant enough to warrant that expenditure.

If you say you consider someone a waste of oxygen, is that not hate? /boggle :(

There are plenty of reasons to hate someone...IE child molesters, serial killers...but for political views..no way. Should I hate everyone who ever voted for (can you tell I never voted for the man? lol) Bush? No way! For me to think they were swayed or mislead..yes..but hate them for it..no way! :D

I say look to ones heart. Look past views and preceptions, look to the heart. Most all of us are the same in that regard and THAT is what is the most important. :)

I know it's just a wikipedia entry, but it does a pretty good job of explaining the term Aryan and also discusses the bastardization of the term from certain Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

I know people want to throw hate out there when they see the term Aryan, but the word has a much larger history than the connotation of hate that is now associated with the term (which is pretty much just a 20th century turn on the word). Most people that only associate the word Aryan with the white racists of the 20th century are ignorant of the history and true meaning of the term. Sorry Byl, but your post about the word shows that you are unaware of the usage of the term prior to Nazi Germany.

By definition of the word, Iranians ARE the true Aryan race. That doesn't mean they are blond hair and blue eyes like we associate the term now. It also doesn't mean an Iranian that claims to be Aryan is a racist either. Now... if a German claimed to be Aryan, it would take on a completely different light.

If you say you consider someone a waste of oxygen, is that not hate? /boggle :(


No, it means they are a waste of oxygen and nothing more. Don't confuse hate with just not caring.

So if a person is a waste of oxygen is it still acceptable for them to breathe the nitrogen et al minus the Oxygen in our atmosphere?

If you say you consider someone a waste of oxygen, is that not hate? /boggle :(

There are plenty of reasons to hate someone...IE child molesters, serial killers...but for political views..no way. Should I hate everyone who ever voted for (can you tell I never voted for the man? lol) Bush? No way! For me to think they were swayed or mislead..yes..but hate them for it..no way! :D

I say look to ones heart. Look past views and preceptions, look to the heart. Most all of us are the same in that regard and THAT is what is the most important. :)

You are ascribing hate to me, whereas I do not feel that. It once again shows a differing opinion. It is the same argument all over again, with simply different focus. I definitely get emotional when it comes to a child molester or some punk robbing and/or assaulting a senior citizen, but I do not get emotional about jedd; he does not have the relevance to anything of matter to me to waste that energy.

Does anyone realize that the "sound bite" of Obamas pastor is actually part of a speech, not a sermon, (he stated clearly he was going off of his sermon) he gave where he was actually quoting a white minister?


Why is it that it is not ok for this minister to denounce actions of war and destruction but it is ok for a minister to advocate war?

I just don't get it...what has happened to christianity and our country?

I know it's just a wikipedia entry, but it does a pretty good job of explaining the term Aryan and also discusses the bastardization of the term from certain Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

I know people want to throw hate out there when they see the term Aryan, but the word has a much larger history than the connotation of hate that is now associated with the term (which is pretty much just a 20th century turn on the word). Most people that only associate the word Aryan with the white racists of the 20th century are ignorant of the history and true meaning of the term. Sorry Byl, but your post about the word shows that you are unaware of the usage of the term prior to Nazi Germany.

By definition of the word, Iranians ARE the true Aryan race. That doesn't mean they are blond hair and blue eyes like we associate the term now. It also doesn't mean an Iranian that claims to be Aryan is a racist either. Now... if a German claimed to be Aryan, it would take on a completely different light.

Yes, Tal, the Wikipedia entry does a good job of explaining something in it's historical perspective, which only adds to the humorous nature of jedd taking that onto himself, as he is not a part of that ancient culture. My grandmother's bloodline can be traced to a Swedish Duke, or some such. Do I get to go to Sweden and claim a title now, then?

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Indo-Aryans

This link as well as any other I have seen so far does not discuss Aryans as a race at all. It was only the warping of those in the 20th century who twisted a culture of many peoples spread over a large area into a race. But, we are children of the 20th century, and so to the casual observer the word Aryan now has a different connotation than originally. /shrug

Folks like to trace their heritage, which is all well and good; but, to claim to be that which your forebears were many centuries back seems a stretch. You were not shaped by those times, do not speak that language, do not live in the same lands, do not have any knowledge of the day to day life you claim to share. You have a connection by blood and genetics, but nothing more.

I am an American who can trace my ancestry to Sweden, Ireland and Scotland. Jedd is an American who can trace his ancestry to Iran. We both have the same option of choosing to leave if we are not happy where we are, or of doing something constructive to affect change. Me, I am happy to live in this country.

My grandmother's bloodline can be traced to a Swedish Duke, or some such. Do I get to go to Sweden and claim a title now, then?


No, but you could certainly claim to be of Swedish decent, just like Jedd could claim to be of Aryan decent.

I just think its hilarious how anything I say leads to a 1-2 page discussion.

I point to my being of Aryan descent in defense of a racism charge, and then there are pages of discussion about Aryans :)

No, but you could certainly claim to be of Swedish decent, just like Jedd could claim to be of Aryan decent.

I agree jedd can claim Iranian forebears, but whether his ancestors can trace to the Aryans described in the varied writings as a mixture of several peoples is what he would need to research to claim Aryan heritage.

I agree jedd can claim Iranian forebears, but whether his ancestors can trace to the Aryans described in the varied writings as a mixture of several peoples is what he would need to research to claim Aryan heritage.

Fortunately my father already researched said claim, and I am speaking based on knowledge of my own line. Your assertions are simply ridiculous as you do not know me or my family. Is this discussion done?

I have a family genealogy completed a couple years ago. It goes back damn near 1000 years (on my mother's side). Apparently I am related to several Danish royalty. Since all royalty in the area seemed to cross breed, we most certainly must be related Bylimet!!

Of course my wife and I both have blue eyes, so that means somewhere along the way we are related too (and to think, all those West Virginia jokes I've lived with my entire life were right!).

On my Dad's side, I'm related to the founder of Morgantown, WV. Didn't give me any benefit when I lived there til i was 10 though. Perhaps I should protest!

He is a typical Berkley-esque bitch that has been given a life by his country that most people in other countries can only dream of, where his dreams can be made reality, and his potential almost limitless; and ,he would rather shit on that and whine about past wrongs done by our governments than actually invest of his time and energy by getting involved in the process and attempting to make change within the system. He is a wannabe in the greatest sense of the word. He wannabe this and he wannabe that, but he instead sits in front of his computer doing his cut and paste arguments in a vain attempt to be somebody that he will never achieve.

He could use his citizenship to become a part of change, but instead sits in his pathetic sense of grandiose self-importance pointing fingers at others as being wrong because they view their country differently.

If these bumbling fools currently mismanaging our country are foolish enough to take some action against Iran, jedd's diatribes against our country will mark him in my eyes as an enemy deserving of a charge of treason.

Yeah, definitely not emotional at all. The lack of care is so obvious.

Do you even read the things you post?

Fortunately my father already researched said claim, and I am speaking based on knowledge of my own line. Your assertions are simply ridiculous as you do not know me or my family. Is this discussion done?

I asserted you needed to research before claiming a heritage, which you now state has been done; I have no reason to contest that what you say is true. What was ridiculous about that assertion? And what does knowing you or your family have to do with the assertion? You make arguments where there are none, and for what purpose?

I asserted you needed to research before claiming a heritage, which you now state has been done; I have no reason to contest that what you say is true. What was ridiculous about that assertion? And what does knowing you or your family have to do with the assertion? You make arguments where there are none, and for what purpose?

You ridiculed me firstly for my claim to being Aryan by posting in regard to every negative use Aryan has ever seen. Then you accuse me of being ignorant to my own lineage. Now you act like all I had to do was tell you It has been researched...

Ahhh the ole I am a victim and please everyone buy into it ploy, the second oldest trick in the book!

First oldest trick in the book is the ole phone in the shoe bit!!

Ainwein, I know you're up to your laurels in school and as such feel the need to defend the weak and downtrodden. Trick is , Jedd is neither.

He comes in just as heavy handed and judgemental as the rest of us you ascribe those tactics to.

That's the fun of the boards, it's rarely been a case of high brow poo poo gentlemans club. It's more the sit around the pub and I'll dot your eye when you jab your finger in my chest kinda place.

But please do feel better about yourself for "rising above" it all and casting judgements about. You look rather silly trying to cast Jedd as an innocent when he's muddied the waters with his anti america diatrabe as much as we've splashed back at him. If he didn't enjoy it so much he'd stay the hell out and go back to his ProIranian boards he used to tout so highly.

Ahhh the ole I am a victim and please everyone buy into it ploy, the second oldest trick in the book!

First oldest trick in the book is the ole phone in the shoe bit!!

Ainwein, I know you're up to your laurels in school and as such feel the need to defend the weak and downtrodden. Trick is , Jedd is neither.

He comes in just as heavy handed and judgemental as the rest of us you ascribe those tactics to.

That's the fun of the boards, it's rarely been a case of high brow poo poo gentlemans club. It's more the sit around the pub and I'll dot your eye when you jab your finger in my chest kinda place.

But please do feel better about yourself for "rising above" it all and casting judgements about. You look rather silly trying to cast Jedd as an innocent when he's muddied the waters with his anti america diatrabe as much as we've splashed back at him. If he didn't enjoy it so much he'd stay the hell out and go back to his ProIranian boards he used to tout so highly.

Ah good ol Fandros... You can always count on him to make a post proving exactly what I or in this case Ainwein is saying.

/chuckle

Trick is Jedd I hold you both in contempt for the judgements and bullshit you cast about , acting the victim while spilling the same vitrole.

/chuckle

Trick is Jedd I hold you both in contempt for the judgements and bullshit you cast about , acting the victim while spilling the same vitrole.

I do not need to act the victim. I am quite able to defend myself, and the only time I "spill the same vitrole" is after you have spent 15 pages calling me names, in which I release some of my inner Fandros.

You don't like my views? Great, I don't like yours either. What makes us adults is when we don't call each other names when we disagree. So are we adults Fandros?

Tsk tsk Jedd I've barely dabbled in these threads as of late.

I'm an adult, twasn't me that sent you a rep that said something to the effect of fuck you redneck I fuck your women blah blah blah. Too bad I can only go so far back and read them. You really are quite the sight when you explode.

Tsk tsk Jedd I've barely dabbled in these threads as of late.

I'm an adult, twasn't me that sent you a rep that said something to the effect of fuck you redneck I fuck your women blah blah blah. Too bad I can only go so far back and read them. You really are quite the sight when you explode.

And what caused me to explode Mr. Adult?

You guys need to settle down and just accept that you have large differences. This has gone on a few pages beyond pointless now.

A direct realization that you tiny real life was in conflict with your internet bully bs?

What's your reaction going to be when Obama slides further into obscurity? As much as we share common ground in disliking the politics of the Clintons you don't seem to have much substance or backbone when it comes to someone daring to speak against you.../gasp

A direct realization that you tiny real life was in conflict with your internet bully bs?

What's your reaction going to be when Obama slides further into obscurity? As much as we share common ground in disliking the politics of the Clintons you don't seem to have much substance or backbone when it comes to someone daring to speak against you.../gasp

No a realization that all you understand is the same garbage you spew.

What are you even talking about?

Wow, this thread has seriously derailed.
For the record, I was the Ay Ro whipping boy about a year ago. I know I have a few "fans" here still, but for the most part, I think I get along ok.

Jedd, your real issue is that you are FAR too sensitive to what these people write. Your position is so transparent on here, it's almost laughable. You post your opinion, and everyone that disagrees is wrong/stupid/racist.

What is really funny is that he's taken to using the PMs to continue his trolling ways.
He always sends me 1 whenever I neg rep him. I guess it's his way of "getting back".

Jedd, just calm down dude, you look like a dog chasing its tail, trying to be the uberpostmaster on this site. State your case, move on. Not everyone that disagrees with you is the "enemy".

Jedd, your real issue is that you are FAR too sensitive to what these people write. Your position is so transparent on here, it's almost laughable. You post your opinion, and everyone that disagrees is wrong/stupid/racist.

Um... The same could be said for you, Akipt, Fandros, and Ibudin.

What is really funny is that he's taken to using the PMs to continue his trolling ways.
He always sends me 1 whenever I neg rep him. I guess it's his way of "getting back".

Believe it or not, every post of yours I neg rep hit was something I felt needed a neg rep hit. You seem to neg rep hit every single post, even if it is not controversial at all. Now you are here crying about the rep hits?

Jedd, just calm down dude, you look like a dog chasing its tail, trying to be the uberpostmaster on this site. State your case, move on. Not everyone that disagrees with you is the "enemy".

I am very calm, and am doing anything but chasing my tail. If anything I would tell you and your ilk the very same thing, however you and your buddies have already decided that I am the "enemy".

But I am sure someone will take this response as me trying to play the victim

/boggle

I also find it hilarious that all this started with Bylimet's post # 124 and I get blamed for all this crap.

On topic, there appears to be new controversy brewing over the new pastor of Obama's church.

Fox has been showing a clip of him preaching and castigating the media for their "lynching" of Wright. Now, whether or not someone agrees with the tactics of the media (which I most certainly do not) using a phrase as racially charged in black history as "lynching" is meant to antagonize and breed animosity. For Obama to continue to complacently shrug off these comments is to ignore the place race has taken in this political contest.

While I thought he gave an incredible speech last week, continuing to associate with this church, if these are the sermons that are going to be given, can only hurt his campaign and put him in the position of having to keep giving comparable speeches, rather than being able to move on and deal with the larger issues.

As the old saying goes: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

On topic, there appears to be new controversy brewing over the new pastor of Obama's church.

Fox has been showing a clip of him preaching and castigating the media for their "lynching" of Wright. Now, whether or not someone agrees with the tactics of the media (which I most certainly do not) using a phrase as racially charged in black history as "lynching" is meant to antagonize and breed animosity. For Obama to continue to complacently shrug off these comments is to ignore the place race has taken in this political contest.

While I thought he gave an incredible speech last week, continuing to associate with this church, if these are the sermons that are going to be given, can only hurt his campaign and put him in the position of having to keep giving comparable speeches, rather than being able to move on and deal with the larger issues.

As the old saying goes: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Who cares what Fox is showing... Fox is the most biased opinionated rubbish on television.

The entire media needs to shift focus from continuing this idiotic foray into Obama's church which he barely has time to attend these days anyways, and focus more on the issues. Or at least give equal coverage of McCain and all his skeletons which so neatly are able to come out of the closet, be folded and tucked away in a trash compactor with the crap coverage it gets.

On topic, there appears to be new controversy brewing over the new pastor of Obama's church.

Fox has been showing a clip of him preaching and castigating the media for their "lynching" of Wright. Now, whether or not someone agrees with the tactics of the media (which I most certainly do not) using a phrase as racially charged in black history as "lynching" is meant to antagonize and breed animosity. For Obama to continue to complacently shrug off these comments is to ignore the place race has taken in this political contest.

While I thought he gave an incredible speech last week, continuing to associate with this church, if these are the sermons that are going to be given, can only hurt his campaign and put him in the position of having to keep giving comparable speeches, rather than being able to move on and deal with the larger issues.

As the old saying goes: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE...who gives a flying fuck what the new pastor said. Are we actually going to elect the president of the United States of America based on what some insignificant pastor of an insignificant church has stated as his opinion?

This is getting completely and utterly ridiculious.

Oh, btw...Today marks the 4000th Us Troop casualty in the war in Iraq a war in which our esteemed leader has gotten us into by attacking them with no provocation and NO ONE is calling for his dismissal.

Obama is about the best we have right now, he's not perfect and he does not claim to be. You really want McCain in there? He loves the war in Iraq and he's a veteran, a former prisoner of war. Does that qualify him? He's flat out reveresed himself on numerous statements from tax policies to the religious right and yet people completely ignore it and yet are going after Obama based on what a church pastor said.

I've seen it all now....just plainly fucking amazing...shame on all of you.

Who cares what Fox is showing... Fox is the most biased opinionated rubbish on television.



While I agree they are a biased channel, I do like Jane Skinner and Shepard Smith. I also like Anderson Cooper on CNN. None of that matters though.

What does matter is that Obama took an 18% dive in polls after the Wright incident. With a fresh piece of negative video showing the new pastor of the same church using racially inflammatory language, those who might be wavering in their support are being given cause to possibly move toward another candidate.

That is why people should care about what Fox is showing. People look at more than mere issues when deciding on their President, they also look at judgement and character from their own frame of reference. If a channel such as Fox can cast a negative light on Obama using these clips of inflammatory sermons, that is not helpful to his campaign. Arguing about what the media should be doing does not change that the video is being shown by at least one broadcast channel.

Now, will Obama have to keep giving speeches about race and his church, or can a different option be considered acceptable that will allow him to move on and not have his church and pastors continue to be distractions?

While I agree they are a biased channel, I do like Jane Skinner and Shepard Smith. I also like Anderson Cooper on CNN. None of that matters though.

What does matter is that Obama took an 18% dive in polls after the Wright incident. With a fresh piece of negative video showing the new pastor of the same church using racially inflammatory language, those who might be wavering in their support are being given cause to possibly move toward another candidate.

That is why people should care about what Fox is showing. People look at more than mere issues when deciding on their President, they also look at judgement and character from their own frame of reference. If a channel such as Fox can cast a negative light on Obama using these clips of inflammatory sermons, that is not helpful to his campaign. Arguing about what the media should be doing does not change that the video is being shown by at least one broadcast channel.

Now, will Obama have to keep giving speeches about race and his church, or can a different option be considered acceptable that will allow him to move on and not have his church and pastors continue to be distractions?

I didn't mean to imply that nobody cares... I meant no one should care.

This election has gotten so disgusting that it pains me to even turn on the news anymore.

Fox is the top rated cable news here in the US.

Opinionated or not, I'd disagree saying that trash channel out of the ME is far worse, you better care what the say and learn to weight it for what it is.

Don't worry about Fox tho, it's Clinton's behind the scenes I wager.

Fox is the top rated cable news here in the US.

Opinionated or not, I'd disagree saying that trash channel out of the ME is far worse, you better care what the say and learn to weight it for what it is.

Don't worry about Fox tho, it's Clinton's behind the scenes I wager.

The fact that Fox is the top rated cable news in the US speaks volumes about Americans...

There we go, they don't agree so you insult us as a people.

I was merely trying to point out you shouldn't disregard it.

Al Jazera (did I get that right?) is a horrible network kowtowing to the powers over there that be and it would be ignorant of one to disgregard what they say merely because one doesn't like what they say.

Since Fox still holds it's ranking and the votes are clearly swaying to the left one could argue it's not nearly as biased as it once was or that Americans use more than one news source to get their story.

They're all biased, all owned by companies that would find favor from one party in control or another.

The fact that Fox is the top rated cable news in the US speaks volumes about Americans...

Thank you, jedd.

I returned to the topic of the thread, and shared info on a further development related to the subject of the thread. A media outlet, regardless of good or bad or whatever, has found another way to attempt to tarnish the candidate you so fervently support. Keep in mind my comments in my post were actually supportive of Obama, and I stressed how this new negative material could harm his candidacy.

You, jedd, have talked around the material, faulting the channel as biased, and then slamming Americans as a group. The fact remains that Obama is now having to face another controversy regarding his church because the media will have people talking about that, instead of about more important issues. Yes, elections and most news programs are disgusting. Live with it.

Obama needs to do more than give an uplifting speech worthy of being compared to some of our revered leaders. He needs to tell his supporters at the church that he needs to move on to another congregation, because they are hurting more than helping him.

And with a large portion of this country being over the age of fifty, many recall incidents of our younger days of racial prejudice; news reports of racial violence in the south; lynchings; murder; riots, and, eventually, civil rights being determined as realistic. It will be at least one, and maybe two, generations yet before those memories are fading enough to be considered insignificant to our political discourse. To have his pastors continuing to put those images in folk's minds and for him to not stand up and say enough is enough, is to implicitly agree with the sentiments. And that will not win the election.

There we go, they don't agree so you insult us as a people.

I was merely trying to point out you shouldn't disregard it.

Al Jazera (did I get that right?) is a horrible network kowtowing to the powers over there that be and it would be ignorant of one to disgregard what they say merely because one doesn't like what they say.

Since Fox still holds it's ranking and the votes are clearly swaying to the left one could argue it's not nearly as biased as it once was or that Americans use more than one news source to get their story.

They're all biased, all owned by companies that would find favor from one party in control or another.

There is a huge difference between Fox and the other news programs. I won't argue with you about it though. We will get nowhere.

Thank you, jedd.

I returned to the topic of the thread, and shared info on a further development related to the subject of the thread. A media outlet, regardless of good or bad or whatever, has found another way to attempt to tarnish the candidate you so fervently support. Keep in mind my comments in my post were actually supportive of Obama, and I stressed how this new negative material could harm his candidacy.

You, jedd, have talked around the material, faulting the channel as biased, and then slamming Americans as a group. The fact remains that Obama is now having to face another controversy regarding his church because the media will have people talking about that, instead of about more important issues. Yes, elections and most news programs are disgusting. Live with it.

Obama needs to do more than give an uplifting speech worthy of being compared to some of our revered leaders. He needs to tell his supporters at the church that he needs to move on to another congregation, because they are hurting more than helping him.

And with a large portion of this country being over the age of fifty, many recall incidents of our younger days of racial prejudice; news reports of racial violence in the south; lynchings; murder; riots, and, eventually, civil rights being determined as realistic. It will be at least one, and maybe two, generations yet before those memories are fading enough to be considered insignificant to our political discourse. To have his pastors continuing to put those images in folk's minds and for him to not stand up and say enough is enough, is to implicitly agree with the sentiments. And that will not win the election.

It is not up to him to decide what pastors around the US preach. This has gotten completely out of hand and quite frankly is exactly what the man was talking about when he said people will try and distract us from what is really important.

I don't care if his pastor says the sky is falling, report it, discuss it and move on. The media is pathetic right now, and my point about Fox News stands. You may have your opinion. I will keep mine. Fox News is truly one of the most embarrassing things about America.

Oh and please give me a break on the slamming Americans as a group BS. I am American, and I will slam every idiot, ignorant, imbecile that our country has 100 times over. The people here who might watch Fox news, and CNN, and look up the news on the internet are not anywhere near the category of idiots I am thinking of.

It is not up to him to decide what pastors around the US preach. This has gotten completely out of hand and quite frankly is exactly what the man was talking about when he said people will try and distract us from what is really important.

I don't care if his pastor says the sky is falling, report it, discuss it and move on. The media is pathetic right now, and my point about Fox News stands. You may have your opinion. I will keep mine. Fox News is truly one of the most embarrassing things about America.

Oh and please give me a break on the slamming Americans as a group BS. I am American, and I will slam every idiot, ignorant, imbecile that our country has 100 times over. The people here who might watch Fox news, and CNN, and look up the news on the internet are not anywhere near the category of idiots I am thinking of.

And thank you again, jedd.

You still are content to display your ignorance of American politics, and your grandiose view of self-importance, rather than read what people are saying. The words are right there in front of you, and spell check showed them to be legible.

The news channel is irrelevant. It is what the channel is broadcasting, what the people that will be deciding their votes will be seeing, that matters. People will be talking about what the media puts in front of them to talk about, because the majority of people do not have time anymore to really spend researching their news. When the average person gets home after working one or two jobs, picking up kids from daycare, and having to get supper ready while also making sure kids are doing homework or chores or whatever, they turn on the news while cooking ands see a clip of Obama's new pastor talking about Reverend Wright being "lynched" by the media; what is their reaction? How does that word affect them? A multitude of factors will determine how people view this, and what importance they give it. But you in your arrogance wish to simply write it off and toss insults, with no awareness of those words affect people around the country who lived through times when lynchings were a reality.

Trying to make this a discussion of Fox or network news reporting or what you do or do not care about insults all the people that have a reaction to those words and that clip of Obama's pastor, and who want to believe Obama may be what he claims. It is hard to believe in a man's promise of hope for change when his supporters revert to negatives rather than seeking solutions, or at least options, to controversy.

People like the ones behind Fox News will always spend their time looking for ways to inflict small cuts on the likes of Obama. You, and he, can spend your time complaining about how wrong they are for cutting on him, and all the while slowly bleed to death. Or, you and he might look for ways to blunt those blades. Ending his association with pastors who insist on using language designed to incite racial passions would go a long way to blunting those blades and to furthering his claim of being a uniter.

And thank you again, jedd.

You still are content to display your ignorance of American politics, and your grandiose view of self-importance, rather than read what people are saying. The words are right there in front of you, and spell check showed them to be legible.

The news channel is irrelevant. It is what the channel is broadcasting, what the people that will be deciding their votes will be seeing, that matters. People will be talking about what the media puts in front of them to talk about, because the majority of people do not have time anymore to really spend researching their news. When the average person gets home after working one or two jobs, picking up kids from daycare, and having to get supper ready while also making sure kids are doing homework or chores or whatever, they turn on the news while cooking ands see a clip of Obama's new pastor talking about Reverend Wright being "lynched" by the media; what is their reaction? How does that word affect them? A multitude of factors will determine how people view this, and what importance they give it. But you in your arrogance wish to simply write it off and toss insults, with no awareness of those words affect people around the country who lived through times when lynchings were a reality.

Trying to make this a discussion of Fox or network news reporting or what you do or do not care about insults all the people that have a reaction to those words and that clip of Obama's pastor, and who want to believe Obama may be what he claims. It is hard to believe in a man's promise of hope for change when his supporters revert to negatives rather than seeking solutions, or at least options, to controversy.

People like the ones behind Fox News will always spend their time looking for ways to inflict small cuts on the likes of Obama. You, and he, can spend your time complaining about how wrong they are for cutting on him, and all the while slowly bleed to death. Or, you and he might look for ways to blunt those blades. Ending his association with pastors who insist on using language designed to incite racial passions would go a long way to blunting those blades and to furthering his claim of being a uniter.

I prefer a man for president who does not run over everyone in his past and change everything about his life that might cause controversy, simply because the news will broadcast it nonstop and some ignorant person who already thinks he is a muslim anyway will hate him.

He was right not to denounce Wright as a person, and he is right not to denounce the church. More power to the man who will not let people dictate his future. Better then all the flip flopping from the other candidates.

Don't worry about Fox tho, it's Clinton's behind the scenes I wager.

Grand prize!!! I do believe you are correct!

how anyone can consider fox a valid news source is completely beyond me.

The news channel is irrelevant. It is what the channel is broadcasting, what the people that will be deciding their votes will be seeing, that matters. People will be talking about what the media puts in front of them to talk about, because the majority of people do not have time anymore to really spend researching their news. When the average person gets home after working one or two jobs, picking up kids from daycare, and having to get supper ready while also making sure kids are doing homework or chores or whatever, they turn on the news while cooking ands see a clip of Obama's new pastor talking about Reverend Wright being "lynched" by the media; what is their reaction?
If that's the best effort they can muster, they deserve their apathy-driven ignorance. If that's what we want American to mean these days, then I can see why someone might not be especially proud to share that label.

The fact that Fox is the top rated cable news in the US speaks volumes about Americans...
I can't help but agree with this myself. A fair number of Fox News is a half-step removed from Jerry Springer these days.

how anyone can consider fox a valid news source is completely beyond me.

Once again, this has nothing to do with Fox being a valid news source.

It has to do with a video clip of a sermon, and how broadcasting that can have a negative impact on a candidate for President. Video clips broadcast on Fox are picked up by other stations, both valid and satirical, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert report. These clips get viewed by millions before they lose out to the next piece of "newsworthy" material. The inability of people to understand that astounds me.

Whether or not Fox is a valid news source, whether or not Clinton or McCain or the wife of Dennis Kucinich(sp) were behind release of the clip, does not matter as much as that the clip is being broadcast, and folks are getting another dose of negativity tossed at their candidate.

It will not be possible to give a great speech, every time that a negative piece like this is tossed in the ring, hoping to defuse the situation. It takes away from more important issues, and diverts attention and energies and resources from moving forward with a campaign. I think it is a valid concern of whether or not Obama is going to spend his time putting out these little fires or is he going to take away the matches. How he responds to this continued harassment will give an idea of how he will respond under the stresses of the presidency.

But if talking about the news network instead of the candidate and how he deals with these distractions is the preference, not much sense in having political discussions. We can just talk about broadcasters lack of integrity and agendas and leave the elections up to someone else.

Once again, this has nothing to do with Fox being a valid news source.

It has to do with a video clip of a sermon, and how broadcasting that can have a negative impact on a candidate for President. Video clips broadcast on Fox are picked up by other stations, both valid and satirical, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert report. These clips get viewed by millions before they lose out to the next piece of "newsworthy" material. The inability of people to understand that astounds me.

Whether or not Fox is a valid news source, whether or not Clinton or McCain or the wife of Dennis Kucinich(sp) were behind release of the clip, does not matter as much as that the clip is being broadcast, and folks are getting another dose of negativity tossed at their candidate.

It will not be possible to give a great speech, every time that a negative piece like this is tossed in the ring, hoping to defuse the situation. It takes away from more important issues, and diverts attention and energies and resources from moving forward with a campaign. I think it is a valid concern of whether or not Obama is going to spend his time putting out these little fires or is he going to take away the matches. How he responds to this continued harassment will give an idea of how he will respond under the stresses of the presidency.

But if talking about the news network instead of the candidate and how he deals with these distractions is the preference, not much sense in having political discussions. We can just talk about broadcasters lack of integrity and agendas and leave the elections up to someone else.

But it is about fox... Because I haven't heard this on any other station, and I am happy that the other networks were smart enough to not report about the new pastor, as it is a pretty stupid story and just attempts to take down Obama for something he has no control over.

This is the first post of yours I can recall that has disgusted me. Your words demean those that struggle to keep jobs, raise kids, and maintain a family, who haven't the time to read the news, but catch what they can, when they can.

I don't even begin to buy that.

My own parents are great examples. They worked long hours to simultaneously build three businesses from scratch, while never neglecting my sister or I. They worked hard as anyone's parents that I can remember and didn't have a lot of extra time, but they never used that as an excuse to be ignorant about the world around them.

How could someone claim to care about their family, while voting blindly when choosing the leader of the free world? Not to mention educating their children to be similarly vapid, by example.

If they want a better life for themselves or their family, they shouldn't expect someone else to do it for them.

How could someone claim to care about their family, while voting blindly when choosing the leader of the free world? Not to mention educating their children to be similarly vapid, by example.



Blindly in your eyes, perhaps. None the less, there are many who are victims of your party and it's leadership that have little or no extra time outside of working and raising a family and trying to keep things together, who do not have the luxury of sitting and reading the newspaper, or surfing the internet, or scanning the varied news magazines. Working multiple jobs to try to come close to the wages of the job lost to an overseas company does not leave the same time your parents might have enjoyed in their day.

I am amazed at your ability to dismiss these people so easily. You are clearly as out of touch as your party's leadership in Washington.

Blindly in your eyes, perhaps. None the less, there are many who are victims of your party and it's leadership that have little or no extra time outside of working and raising a family and trying to keep things together, who do not have the luxury of sitting and reading the newspaper, or surfing the internet, or scanning the varied news magazines. Working multiple jobs to try to come close to the wages of the job lost to an overseas company does not leave the same time your parents might have enjoyed in their day.

I am amazed at your ability to dismiss these people so easily. You are clearly as out of touch as your party's leadership in Washington.

These very people are the ones who should then be quiet while the rest of us who are more informed make the decisions. I am tired of these very people seeing one news headline and making opinions on the spot that would have never been formed if they had taken the time to follow what has been going on. In essence they may harm themselves rather then help, because of a headline they caught 1 night when they had the time to turn on the TV.

Yea, no sympathy from me.

It is our right to vote... It is our responsibility to know why we are voting for the person we are voting for.

many who are victims of your party
out of touch as your party's

Do you realize I'm defending a Democratic candidate from the Republican slanted Fox network? I don't think that your accusations could possibly make less sense.

You seem anxious to insult people lately, instead of debate ideas, fact, policy, etc. Bad week?

Do you realize I'm defending a Democratic candidate from the Republican slanted Fox network? I don't think that your accusations could possibly make less sense.

You seem anxious to insult people lately, instead of debate ideas, fact, policy, etc. Bad week?

You claim to be a republican, so if comparing you to your party leaders is deemed an insult, I apologize for that. And if you have read my posts, you would see I have also been taking Obama's side, and am upset about these distractions.

I am not tossing insults, like jedd who says anyone not as informed as him should shut up and stay out of the election. I am saying that your post reads to me as someone who is as out of touch with the American citizen struggling to make ends meet as the leaders in Washington, of your party, so obviously are. If you take that as an insult, so be it. It was not intended as such, but merely letting you know how I interpret your words.

jedd's post simply reads as his usual self-important arrogance.

And it has actually been a good week, as I have been off work for the last ten days. Tomorrow I return, so it might go down hill from here. :rolleyes:

For the record, I don't believe there to be a single Republican in the White House today. I think there are Democrats that are closer to being true Republicans than the current administration.

That said, why would I be out of touch with people making less than ideal money, just because I don't accept your excuses for their (or anyone's) ignorance? You drew that socioeconomic line, not me.

I know plenty people who make barely enough money to get by. After all, that's more and more of us these days. I've seen better days, financially, myself.

However, some people don't latch onto that as an excuse. They recognize that they're in control of their own destiny, redouble their efforts to better themselves, and earn a way out of their situation.

Others spend all of their time complaining about how they don't have enough money, time, etc. Oh, the world is stacked impossibly against them, yet they somehow always manage to have time to be up to date on Britney Spears, American Idol, and whatever playoffs are seasonal.

I will not pity those people, and I must agree with Jedd about their overall contribution to the vote.

If you want to blame "my" party for this mess we're in, you should think twice. "My" party is in power very largely due to the votes of the same people whose ignorance you're currently defending.

So, the "ignorant" are not as worthy as the "arrogant" of calling themselves Americans and taking part in determining their leaders ? Interesting point of view you and jedd share.

These very people are the ones who should then be quiet while the rest of us who are more informed make the decisions. I am tired of these very people seeing one news headline and making opinions on the spot that would have never been formed if they had taken the time to follow what has been going on. In essence they may harm themselves rather then help, because of a headline they caught 1 night when they had the time to turn on the TV.

Yea, no sympathy from me.

It is our right to vote... It is our responsibility to know why we are voting for the person we are voting for.

Ahhhhh you have got to be kidding me. This line amazes me and is proof positive of why most folks decide you blather and attempt to convince through soundbites.

I am not tossing insults...

Really, yes you have been for the past several days. So much so that I've been glossing over most things you've written in the last 24 hours because it's been the same vitriol laden tirades that I would expect from a few other posters on this board rather than your normal, rational discussions I had come to expect from you after several years of posting on these boards.

Ahhhhh you have got to be kidding me. This line amazes me and is proof positive of why most folks decide you blather and attempt to convince through soundbites.

Sorry if you like uninformed people making decisions that impact us all, but I don't.

I wouldnt want to get heart surgery from a dentist, I wouldnt want my teeth worked on by a garbage man, and I sure as hell don't want the leader of the free world chosen by ignorant and uninformed voters.

Jedd, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them uninformed. It means they have a different opinion from you.

What has made the U.S. a great country, in the past, was the ability to come to a consensus.

Now people tend to be so polarized, that consensus is impossible.

Jedd, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them uninformed. It means they have a different opinion from you.

What has made the U.S. a great country, in the past, was the ability to come to a consensus.

Now people tend to be so polarized, that consensus is impossible.

When I speak of uninformed people I am not speaking of people who have a different opinion. You all have different opinions, but at least you know what is going on, and you form your opinions from that knowledge.

The people I am speaking of are the ones who take sound bites and 1 or 2 news headlines they may catch and vote without having followed the entire story.

Akipt may vote for McCain, and I may think he is wrong. However he is more informed then over 50% of America and I respect him for that.

maybe we should have testing to vote. If you pass you can vote. I bet most of the country would fail the test even if it was on a 5th grade level. ala Are you smarter than a 5ht grader.

But we have already discussed service ect as a req. for voting before. Calling somone ignorant because you believe they only read a snipet or watched there favorite preacher on tv say X canidate is the man/woman is enough for some to vote one way. Abortion is a great example of this.

So, the "ignorant" are not as worthy as the "arrogant" of calling themselves Americans and taking part in determining their leaders ? Interesting point of view you and jedd share.
So, now I'm arrogant because I think people should make informed decisions? That's not you throwing more ad hominem, just another "observation", right?

You're not going to guilt me into thinking that it makes sense to be an Idiocracy apologist.

I bet most of the country would fail the test even if it was on a 5th grade level.

Calling somone ignorant because you believe they only read a snipet or watched there favorite preacher on tv say X canidate is the man/woman is enough for some to vote one way. Abortion is a great example of this.


And this is how Bush got elected....proving that there are many who are not smarter than a 5th grader.

/raises hand.

I voted for him, but only because he was a wild cowboy.

Rover and that's how Clinton got elected, and Bush before him and Reagan and Carter and etc etc etc

It's called the media and sinking to the lowest common denominator to get your message across.

Our country is built on representation of THE PEOPLE Jedd. That means if the "ignorant" Foxfed folks are the only ones that come out and vote that you only have the Berkely self affected fucknuts to blame for their apathetic view on civic duty.

Don't blame Fox, blame all the college kids who are oh so learned yet too lazy to give a damn to get involved.

What's the % of the voting populace that show up at the polls...35%?

I'd rather the Fox fed folks at least raised their hands, sound like they were educated enough to get off their duffs and vote. If they can't be bothered to vote sounds like those are the ones you should worry about.

So, now I'm arrogant because I think people should make informed decisions? That's not you throwing more ad hominem, just another "observation", right?


No, Sanchek. I was saying you are arrogant because you have been coming across (in my opinion) as an elitist for some time, mostly since the debates around your choice of candidates, Ron Paul, and the comments some were making about him. And yes, that was insulting of me to call you arrogant, and yes, it was intended.

I gave an example of someone at the end of the day catching a snippet of news while making dinner, and asked what they might think about that, and how they might react to it. I did not say anything about if they would look into it further, but I did say that many really don't have the time to scour the news that many of us enjoy. The way your response, and jedd's, read to me, is that if someone does not have as much time to invest as you do in researching candidates, they have no right to take part in the process of the elections. And yes, I will call you both arrogant for that.

I have found myself over the last few weeks looking closer at all three remaining candidates, wanting to make a decision but finding the same problems basically with all three candidates. I saw Obama drop in the polls due to the Wright video, and I watched and read his speech, and was impressed. I then saw Wright's replacement continuing in the same vein that caused the initial uproar, and I am questioning why is he allowing those around him to keep causing distractions.

What I found by posting about that is folks would rather rant about the source of the news than look at what might be a flaw in Obama's judgement and discuss that.

It has been pointed out that I have been insulting folks a lot lately, although I only know of intentional insults toward jedd and Sanchek. Since I do not enjoy losing respect in they eyes of others any more than I like looking at some with less respect than I once did, I will leave the political debates to others for a while. There are plenty of other topics here to weigh in on.

I am questioning why is he allowing those around him to keep causing distractions.

You cannot possibly believe that Obama has control over what his pastor past, present or future said.

I mean really, what did Wright say that was incorrect except that the whiteman gave Aids to the blacks. The man said something nutty and we are supposed to think that shows Obama lacks judgement? Maybe it shows he has tolerance and believes in the right of everyone to have an opinion, valid or not.

maybe we should have testing to vote. If you pass you can vote. I bet most of the country would fail the test even if it was on a 5th grade level. ala Are you smarter than a 5ht grader.Base the test on current international/national issues, the Constitution, and design it to be passable by someone who can pass high school (how's that for low bar?), and I'd be in favor of it.

So you're for changing the constitution and making it an elistist document?

Why not put a King in place and let's redevelop a class system where in the peons are to toil in the field. After all we know what's good for them...

Witness the violence inherent in the system!!!

Folks , whether you like it or not this government is designed to be elected by the people. Not just folks you approve of.

You can't guarantee anyones rights without them having the right to vote.

Either all men possess certain rights which are unalienable or they do not.

End of story.

Democracy cannot be 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around discussing what they are going to have for dinner.

You can't guarantee anyones rights without them having the right to vote.

Either all men possess certain rights which are unalienable or they do not.

End of story.

Democracy cannot be 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around discussing what they are going to have for dinner.


Though the democracy stays alive when everyone gets to vote, the country may fail when a corrupt leader or one whom has bad judgement is given power.

Our president is the most powerful person in the world and putting such a decision in the hands of people who care more about Britney Spears, or whom find dinner and a basketball game more important will be the downfall of our country... But don't worry, the democracy will live on.

I am not advocating changing the rules of our democracy... I am only commenting on those who find it unimportant when compared to other things that matter less.

So you're for changing the constitution and making it an elistist document?

Why not put a King in place and let's redevelop a class system where in the peons are to toil in the field. After all we know what's good for them...

Witness the violence inherent in the system!!!

Folks , whether you like it or not this government is designed to be elected by the people. Not just folks you approve of.Not quite. I'm assuming some of that was sarcastic, but regarding the constitution part - we're in danger of losing our rights because so many fail to understand them. Politicians understand perfectly well the power of media to influence public opinion, and with voter turn out so low it doesn't take much to push poor policy through. I'm not in favor of changing the Constitution, but rather emphasizing it and making sure the current generation has the sense to actually know what their rights are.

I'm also becoming more and more in favor of requiring some sort of certification to have children, and hence limiting the so-called natural right to procreate. Not as a caste system, but simply a way of setting some sort of standards of civilized behavior.

Not everyone can drive, or work any job, or enter every location in the country, or apply for certain benefits. The premise already exists. No elitist class, just a very bare minimum that suggests an individual has some clue in their head before they start punching for the candidate who's name they heard the most on TV.

My wife calls me a nazi-barbarian.

No, Sanchek. I was saying you are arrogant because you have been coming across (in my opinion) as an elitist for some time, mostly since the debates around your choice of candidates, Ron Paul, and the comments some were making about him. And yes, that was insulting of me to call you arrogant, and yes, it was intended.
I'm completely at a loss here. In one page of one thread, I have apparently swung all the way from a Neocon Republican to an elitist Ron Paul supporter. I suppose I'll be a "terrorist" soon at this rate.

Keep in mind that Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. You know, "We the people" and all that jazz. Ron Paul's ideals make even the Democratic candidates look elitist by comparison.

Care to explain the elitism in supporting greater equality, eliminating the power of special interest money, fixing monetary policy (which most affects the poor), and leveling the taxation playing field? Seriously. I'm morbidly curious now.

In the end, your choice to respond to logical debate with ad hominem serves more to illustrate Jedd's point than anything else.

You can't guarantee anyones rights without them having the right to vote.

Either all men possess certain rights which are unalienable or they do not.

End of story.

Democracy cannot be 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around discussing what they are going to have for dinner.


One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about
a battle that goes on inside all people. He said, "My
son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us
all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow,
regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt,
resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride,
superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope,
serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy,
generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then
asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed

I'm completely at a loss here. In one page of one thread, I have apparently swung all the way from a Neocon Republican to an elitist Ron Paul supporter. I suppose I'll be a "terrorist" soon at this rate.

Keep in mind that Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. You know, "We the people" and all that jazz. Ron Paul's ideals make even the Democratic candidates look elitist by comparison.

Care to explain the elitism in supporting greater equality, eliminating the power of special interest money, fixing monetary policy (which most affects the poor), and leveling the taxation playing field? Seriously. I'm morbidly curious now.

In the end, your choice to respond to logical debate with ad hominem serves more to illustrate Jedd's point than anything else.

And your post here illustrates my point.

I have not used the term Neocon Republican at any point in this thread.

I have not discussed Ron Paul's platform or ideas at any point in this thread, but remarked how you (in my opinion) have been coming across since the thread about him.

Rather than discuss the subject of a sentence, you have chosen instead to redefine the focus to fit what you wish to talk about. Which is why it is pointless to attempt discussion. That has been done not just by you but several, in the last couple pages. It is unfortunate that the art of listening cannot be applied when reading text.

Your repeatedly lumping me in with the current administration, even though you obviously know I don't support it, is an attempt at labeling me a Neocon. Even if you didn't say it, you clearly implied it. That's as ridiculous as me lumping you in with the Hilary camp because you liked Bill.

I went back and re-read the Ron Paul thread. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's a fantastical accusation though, that I support a grass-roots Constitutionalist (who would knock the elite on their asses), but am somehow elitist for it.

Rather than discuss the subject of a sentence, you have chosen instead to redefine the focus to fit what you wish to talk about.

You can't lower yourself to ad hominem, and then complain when people simply defend themselves from what you started to begin with. Of course that's going to become the focus of the conversation. What did you expect?

He expects you to accept, without question, whatever he has to say, you Noecon elitist terrorist....:rolleyes:

Though the democracy stays alive when everyone gets to vote, the country may fail when a corrupt leader or one whom has bad judgement is given power.

Our president is the most powerful person in the world and putting such a decision in the hands of people who care more about Britney Spears, or whom find dinner and a basketball game more important will be the downfall of our country... But don't worry, the democracy will live on.

I am not advocating changing the rules of our democracy... I am only commenting on those who find it unimportant when compared to other things that matter less.

And I'm saying you are upset with the wrong folks. It's not the Foxfed folks that are focking up this country it's the laughable many that can't be bothered to fulfill their civic duty to vote.

Truth is you don't know what's best for this country, nor I nor any single person. It's the representation of the whole that's elected to speak and to act on our behalf. They are there to make decisions based , at the very least, on the myth of doing what we'd have them do.

Im not one to defend Sanchek, or even say anything nice about him.... but he is definitely not a "Neo-Con". He is about as close to a true conservative as anyone I know. I think the incompetence of Bush helped nudge him that way, but it is what it is.

Akipt is more of a Neo Con.

Osgilliath isn't really anything, he just identifies with the GOP because they make his penis feel larger.

Im not one to defend Sanchek, or even say anything nice about him.... but he is definitely not a "Neo-Con". He is about as close to a true conservative as anyone I know. I think the incompetence of Bush helped nudge him that way, but it is what it is.

Akipt is more of a Neo Con.

Osgilliath isn't really anything, he just identifies with the GOP because they make his penis feel larger.

I agree Lleauric, Sanchek is not a NeoCon, and I have never said so. He has inferred that, and decided I implied it from how he is reading what I posted.

I stated he was coming across as an elitist (in my opinion) based on how I was reading his posts; i.e., he appears to me to be on a pedestal talking down to people as though they are not as intelligent as he, and goes so far as to say those that can't learn as much about candidates as he have no business taking part in the election process. That strikes me as elitist and arrogant, and I said so.

Because we are reading each other's posts from our own frame of reference rather than that of the other person, we are seeing things quite differently.
As is stated earlier, this is exactly why I am going to be avoiding talking politics here for a while.

Was reading last night and saw this quote, which seems appropriate:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The People cannot be safe without information.

- Thomas Jefferson

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about
a battle that goes on inside all people. He said, "My
son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us
all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow,
regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt,
resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride,
superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope,
serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy,
generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then
asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed

Love this one Nekko :)

So, now I'm arrogant because I think people should make informed decisions?

THAT is why education should never be cut and deminished...EVER! Informed decisions is the only way folks can go toe to toe with them politicians or even come close to understanding what they are doing in the white house. I think they have already gone beyond what many people understand already....sadly. So since they do not know they go off the proganda media to determine who they want for president. Whoever can put out the most and swayful ads wins president...ya us! :(

Even worse we may know what we want in a president but the person we want is not even a leading contender to be able to vote for. :(
It is like..do you want corrupted gready politician one or lying greedy politician two..... /shrug So disheartening. :(