Obama and The Trinity Divisive Church of Christ

I personally think standing on one's principle is usally better than caving to political pressures.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Lisaed. After all, you have written many (I count 5) articles in which you criticize Obama for attending the church, and yet you write this article which criticizes him for leaving.

In your opinion, what do you think Obama should do to put this controversy behind him.

Obama already PUT the controversy behind him. That's not the right question. The right question is, how can those who write articles like this put the controversy behind them? The answer is: They can't, because they don't want to, because they're really only INTERESTED in the controversy.

This isn't about the church. It's about using the Church, that's why these articles keep popping up regardless of how Obama handles it. It's about furthering the controversy. It's about the very bigotry that they claim to see in Obama. It's also going to backfire.

They're using up all their big guns during a primary which Obama has already won. I can't wait to see them try to relight this fire during the election.

I don't agree with Lisa, but I do think she is right by arguing that Obama's involvement in the church should be an issue in deciding the next president. If McCain was a part of a church that shared the TUCC's rhetoric, it is safe to say that I would be the first one to criticize him for it.

Brian---do you think Reverend Wright is going to keep his mouth closed between now and November particularly now that his friend Obama has denounced him?

No, but I also don't think it's going to make a difference.

I don't agree with Lisa, but I do think she is right by arguing that Obama's involvement in the church should be an issue in deciding the next president.

I disagree. If it turns out that there is evidence that Obama is going to base his policy strictly on issues which a person disagrees with, which are borne of his attendance at TUCC (no one ever seems to have any evidence of that, though) THEN -- and only then -- do I think it much matters.

George Bush's religion didn't concern me until I found out he believed God told him to invade Iraq.

Oh, I believe he felt people were going to unfairly use his membership in the Church against him. He said as much himself. I don't agree with the way you spin that, though.

Obama already PUT the controversy behind him. That's not the right question. The right question is, how can those who write articles like this put the controversy behind them? The answer is: They can't, because they don't want to, because they're really only INTERESTED in the controversy.

You have it exactly backwards. Obama will NEVER be able to put the controversy behind him. For one simple reason - it is obvious to anyone who has fairly looked at the the circumstances and facts involved in this controversy that Barack Obama has been lying about this since the beginning.

Only by WILLFULLY ignoring the obvious, can one conclude that Obama has been truthful when he has claimed not to know of racialist goings on at TUCC

You have it exactly backwards. Obama will NEVER be able to put the controversy behind him. For one simple reason - it is obvious to anyone who has fairly looked at the the circumstances and facts involved in this controversy that Barack Obama has been lying about this since the beginning.

Great, so -- your own qualification rules YOU out.

No Brian, the people who say "it's only about religion, so there's no reason to look at it" would be the unfair people.

Were it not for their racialist ideology, there would be no reason for this church to exist.

I give Obama a little credit for realizing that a President of the United States cannot be connected in any way to such an organization, but his explanation and continued praise for this group is simply not palatable. He praised Rev Moss YESTERDAY, even after Moss had led the minstrel show of Father Pfleger onto the TUCC stage last Sunday.

The people involved in that church, from Obama to Wright to Moss to Pfleger need to express a sense of shame over what they have done and what they do, not go on enabling one another.

But Brian, with so little time knowing about what TUCC is about but yet seeing two people's terrible diatribes, what was going on when the camera was off of TUCC?

If you're in a church for 20 years, you're in it for a reason. I have not yet heard what that reason is. The thing that concerns me is that with the great speech he had on the racial divide, why does he go to a church that doesn't seem to want that divide filled? It doesn't make any sense to me.

The fact that Obama doesn't let his religion influence him is great, but his judgment might be found lacking in that he is associated with these folks.

If you're in a church for 20 years, you're in it for a reason. I have not yet heard what that reason is.

If you haven't heard, you haven't been listening. Or, you choose to simply not believe his explanation, which is fine. Either way, he's GIVEN one, and he's not really wavered on the reason he gave. I've seen no evidence that the cameras weren't on for his other sermons, yet we still have a less than 1% (far less, I assume) of his sermons under scrutiny.

Probably because it doesn't look as good to criticize him during the 99% of the time when he's simply praising Jesus, or whatever it is you do while you're at Church.

As for "two" people's terrible diatribes, one of those people was a guest pastor, at a time when Obama wasn't even attending the Church. Second, if everyone is REALLY concerned about what they're saying, and not about playing "gotcha" with Obama, why aren't people looking into Pflegger's (sp?) Church? Why not scrutinize him and his congregation? Why, in the quest to "get" Obama, are we forgetting to look into that other Church, and what they stand for, and what he's preaching to a congregation which Obama isn't even a part of?

Because, obviously, that would detract from putting the focus on Obama.

He had said that he went to TUCC for the discussion it provided, but that was the only thing I'd heard. Do you have a more specific quote? The quote he had was somewhat vague.

He's said over and over that he goes to Worship God, and that the vast majority of the sermon's were focused on faith in God.

One can worship God in front of the TV, plenty of faiths to choose.

He said, he said, he said. All hat and no cattle

It would also seem that Father Pfleger is not a bad man, but like everyone, can make mistakes. In the age of Youtube and camera phones, everyone can be on stage. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, I don't know. But he seems to have done some good in this world, so on that I can't honestly say that he is a bad person.

There is certainly a tradition in the African-American church to speak against injustice, against racism, against sexism, against economic inequality," Mr. Obama said."

Is there room for discussion of God in the midst of all of that?

Yes, yes and yes! If I'm not mistaken, that seems PRECISELY like the sort of things Jesus would have spoken out against.

I would agree on that Brian.

but I do think she is right by arguing that Obama's involvement in the church should be an issue in deciding the next president.

This is a fair point. However, we should have an HONEST conversation about the issue, and that has not occured.

Obama left his church this weekend because he is concerned some voters may fear he shares the black separatist values espoused at TUCC

Oh, forget the fact that the congregants were being harassed by the media, and that the church was receiving death threats and the like, because none of that had any influence on his decisions. < / sarcasm >

But at least he has priniciples.

Obama clearly has shown no compunction about abandoning anyone who stands in his way, but only when forced to act. Observers internationally will wonder whether he would stand alongside allies.

India, too, wonders about this latest American idol. He speaks of China and India taking American jobs. I read one commentary describing him as isolationist.

As for "two" people's terrible diatribes, one of those people was a guest pastor, at a time when Obama wasn't even attending the Church. Second, if everyone is REALLY concerned about what they're saying, and not about playing "gotcha" with Obama, why aren't people looking into Pflegger's (sp?) Church? Why not scrutinize him and his congregation? Why, in the quest to "get" Obama, are we forgetting to look into that other Church, and what they stand for, and what he's preaching to a congregation which Obama isn't even a part of?

Because, obviously, that would detract from putting the focus on Obama.

I don't know if you are unable to figure this out, or are just so in love with Obama that you have taken leave of critical faculty and are now just a follower.

There is a lot of information available about the beliefs of Rev Wright. Anyone who says the objections to him are confined to a couple sermons is either stone dense or a liar.

As for Father Pfleger, you say he was a 'guest' speaker at TUCC as if Obama wouldn't know him from Adam. ROFL. Pfleger has been a friend of Obama's for 20 years. He is far from a stranger or 'mere acquaintance'. Are they 'best buds'? No, but they are long time friends and associates.

Why is it that Pfleger felt so emboldened to put on that racist circus on Barack Obama's behalf ?

It is the NATURE of TUCC , Rev Moss, Rev Wright and Father Pfleger to carry on like this. THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME. The chances of them not doing it during the times when Obama was in the pews for 20 years are infinitesimal. That is the nature of your denial, and why YOU have no credibility on this topic.

That is the nature of your denial, and why YOU have no credibility on this topic.

I judge people by their own actions, not by the actions of others. I'm basing my support of Obama on his stance on the issues that I find to be important, not on what his pastor has said, in a handful of sermons.

Your anger and your passion amuses me.

I judge people by their own actions,

Obama went to church for 20 years in a church with a racist pastor that practiced a racist ideology. That is an action, a long series of actions.

I'm basing my support of Obama on his stance on the issues that I find to be important, not on what his pastor has said, in a handful of sermons.

Much, much more is known about Wright than a few sermons, and much more was known about Wright by Obama than a few sermons.

Your anger and your passion amuses me.

I couldn't care less about what amuses you.

I couldn't care less about what amuses you.

I expected as much.

Much, much more is known about Wright than a few sermons, and much more was known about Wright by Obama than a few sermons.

Such as? Give me the other 99% about Wright that I haven't heard over and over -- those parts which comprise less than 2 hours of these damnable 20 years. Convince me that what he's saying is worse than what I'll hear if I go to any other Church preaching division and superiority.

And then, do what I've been asking you to do: Prove to me that anything he heard in that Church is reflected in his policy.

I'm not convincing you of anything. Jeremiah Wright HIMSELF told Bill Moyers that the tapes were "5, 7 or 15 years old".

Barack Obama knew when he came to TUCC that Wright was a radical preacher. It was the reason he came. He knew Wright was an adherent of BLT. When he was younger and more radicalized himself, Obama was attracted to all this. As his political career took off and he moved up the ladder eventually to US Senator, he should have got off the TUCC-BLT-James Cone bus, but he didn't. He should have quit TUCC when he decided to run for President, but he didn't.

I don't think Obama believes everything that Wright does, or Pfleger does, and I am not interested in parsing what parts of it he does believe. Obama had (has) a responsibility to everyone to denounce (in a kind way if he likes) TUCC. This church exists for the purpose of psychologically separating blacks from the rest of America, and that is reprehensible. Obama is well aware of the nature of this church, and has kept silent (lied) so as not to upset his 90% black voting base.

He deserves whatever problems this church has brought him, because he has been dishonest about his knowledge of Rev Wright and BLT and TUCC from the beginning.

He knew Wright was an adherent of BLT.

I too, am an advocate of a nice Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato -- so long as you hold the Tomato.

I wrote this article in part as it says that it's becoming increasingly evident that Obama is not capable of standing on any principle

Ha! There's so much more (credible) material on McCain, yet I've seen no such articles from you on that subject.

Obama went to church for 20 years in a church with a racist pastor that practiced a racist ideology.

Yes, in your biased view.

When he was younger and more radicalized himself, Obama was attracted to all this.

I'd love to see some proof. I won't hold my breath though.

Obama went to church for 20 years in a church with a racist pastor that practiced a racist ideology.

Yes, in your biased view.

I have the view of someone that has looked into the situation. Most of the people who defend Wright on this forum don't have the slightest idea of what his views are, haven't looked at any of the relevant materials, and are simply defending Obama by defending Wright.

Everything in that church, from the use of the word Africans to describe the congregation, to the 'black' values system, to Wright's obsessive use of the words 'white supremacy', to Wright's appropriation of the day Americans honor their war dead, Memorial Day, to honor the Shaka Zulu warriors of South Africa in their battle against British colonialism, to Rev Moss describing his congregation as 'lepers' in the eyes of white Americans, etc. etc. etc. points to the pathological race consciousness that permeates that church. Of course there are black racists there, how could it possibly be otherwise given the emphasis of the church leaders?

Everything in that church, from the use of the word Africans to describe the congregation, to the 'black' values system, to Wright's obsessive use of the words 'white supremacy', to Wright's appropriation of the day Americans honor their war dead, Memorial Day, to honor the Shaka Zulu warriors of South Africa in their battle against British colonialism, to Rev Moss describing his congregation as 'lepers' in the eyes of white Americans, etc. etc. etc. points to the pathological race consciousness that permeates that church.

I fail to see how any of the points you've made are proof of racism. Are non-whites not allowed to embrace their heritage, or criticize those who would threaten their culture or existence?

Are non-whites not allowed to embrace their heritage, or criticize those who would threaten their culture or existence?

It absolutely shouldn't be done under the false pretense of Christian worship.

It absolutely shouldn't be done under the false pretense of Christian worship.

Why-ever not? There's nothing "un-Christian" about embracing a heritage, even if that heritage isn't white. Even if they hold that heritage more dearly than they hold their (more recent) white heritage. Even if they happen to see it as the superior heritage.

Part of their faith involves their heritage, and if that's their own particular bent on the Christian religion, when so many other (white) denominations invoke their own perspective on the Religion, then I reject anyone who says it's wrong to do so, and I certainly point out my earlier statement that TUCC isn't alone in divisiveness, and the hypocrisy on THIS thread would astound me.

I fail to see how any of the points you've made are proof of racism. Are non-whites not allowed to embrace their heritage, or criticize those who would threaten their culture or existence?

I could explain it to you, but you think Father Pfleger was telling the truth the other day when he made his accusations against Hillary Clinton, so I am not going to bother.

I could explain it to you, but you think Father Pfleger was telling the truth the other day when he made his accusations against Hillary Clinton, so I am not going to bother.

Ha! Way to avoid the issue. And who said I endorse Pfleger's statement? That's an assumption you made, and further evidence of your blatant bias.

I'm not avoiding the issueI have written a great deal about this subject of TUCC. It's just a waste of time to try and convince the kool aid drinkers.

It is clear that you cannot support your claims.

First, I said "even if" which made it a hypothetical and second, I once again have to point out that I haven't seen much unity from White Christian churches which would lead me to believe that they feel that "all people are equal in the eyes of our Lord" anyway.

So, glass houses and all that jazz.

who threatens their existence?

Well, there is no outright extermination campaign against blacks and other non-whites , if that's what you're getting at.

However, there are many in our society who threaten some of the very things that make non-whites who they are (I could list examples, if needed). And I would argue that there is nothing inherently wrong in defending or criticizing those who threaten such things. Now, that is not to say I condone fighting fire with fire. This is where I think some take too far.

I'd love to see such an article from you!

Perhaps in the near future. I actually used to write editorials for my school newspaper (The Emory Wheel) all the time. I tend to have strong opinions, but am typically very fair.

Pfleger made Wright look tame. What a schmuck. He made the GOP pundits look tame in their hammering of Hillary over the tears episode. I would stand up and walk out of any sermon as bigoted as his, just as I would rebuke any statements made against Obama for his middle name or skin color or any other irrelevant, bigoted argument.

Oh, and by the way, nice article Lisa. I plan on cross-publishing at NeoConstant if you don't mind...

Cheers,

E.D.

It seems there are some on that thread whose hatred of Bush is so great that they are directing those intense negative feelings at me personally for having the "audacity" to post a pro-Bush seed on newsvine......thanks again.

Please don't lie, Lisa, or play victim. You are ignoring valid questions and moderating poorly. Maybe if you had actual facts and used them....

The Jones Girl,

I have to tell you, the way you follow lisa around NV harassing her, you would probably be convicted of stalking if it wasn't occurring on the Internet, and I'm sure a judge would issue a restraining order against you. (maybe a good idea here...Internet restraining orders )

I just want to know, what is it that makes you so obsessed with her?

I see her posts, I comment. I don't let lies stand, sorry.

If either of you don't like my comments, put me on ignore.

I don't let lies stand, sorry.

You're absolutely right, TJG--none of your lies has a leg to stand on...

What lies, ED?

Link them.

Lisa, you post inaccuracies and opinion as fact all the time. As I said before, I will not answer your questions, until you do the same for myself and others. But I can say that your ideas about Obama and his church are lies.

But I can say that your ideas about Obama and his church are lies.

"Lies" are in the eyes of the beholder and there are enough UTubes around. The perfect statement is: I respectfully disagree with you.

Hey that was a response to you calling other people liars. As far as I'm concerned that was a lie. I prefer not to use the word (and rarely do) but then there it was, introduced by you and how could I pass up that opportunity?

Try acting with less pride and more respect--it will get you further.

"Lies" are in the eyes of the beholder and there are enough UTubes around. The perfect statement is: I respectfully disagree with you.

Like determined said...

This has nothing to do with only four delegates. The numbers are much greater, and very unbalanced. Obama got all the other delegates in Florida instead of the ones he won. In Michigan, he won none and still got almost the same number as Clinton who won overwhelmingly. This "method" of giving a candidate far more delegates than he has won is unique in the history of the election process as far as I know. Yet the "democratic" Party is unfazed about the way the delegates were given to Obama and he will be able to handpick them for himself. This is ridiculous in my view.

And elsewhere. They disrespect Puerto Rico, the Hispanics, the Jews, the poor whites, the vast majority of the Nation. And they will get what they deserve, many times over. A disgusting group that should be largely ignored come the Fall.

pc:

Obama got all the other delegates in Florida instead of the ones he won.

That's not true. The FL delegates were allocated by the primary results. She lost a couple because of the superdelegate halving and he gained a couple because some of the Edwards delegates switched.

That is why he needs Clinton's & Edward's support more than ever in the upcoming election. Without it, this will surely be a tough campaign for Sen. Obama.

IT is hard to find the real figures since the MSM has distorted the vote and results. What may be the primary results are the following percentages:

Clinton 870,986 51% Obama 576,214 34% Edwards 251,562 15%

What could have been the allocation is as follows:

Clinton 107 delegates
Obama 67 delegates
Edwards 12 delegates

From there, you can figure out the allocations, if indeed they are at all meaningful. At the end of the day, failure to reinstate the entire vote fails to recognize the more than forty delegate gap between the two candidates. In the fall, Obama will get less than a third. So goes the Democratic Party.

pc:

That's exactly what got allocated.

And EVERYONE signed off, including Hillary, on the RBC result, so why are still @!$%#ing about Florida?

Professor,

You get irrational every Presidential election.

det:

Thank you for sharing that.

You are very welcome, Professor.

Still I consider you a very good friend.

I will keep out of your way until a President is elected.

obama cannot win in November with just the blacks, the young, and the rich liberals

Absolutely, and he will get more than just those sort of voters. Mark my words.

More of the same McCain won't be able to swoop much of anything.

Lisaed, I agree that much of this is in the hands of Hillary. But at the end of the day, I believe she will work to unite the party, and many of her supporters will come out for Obama. I don't see McCain picking up many of her voters with his policy stances.

That said I'm not so sure that Obama has a true understanding of Christianity---I hope someday like you do that he learns from a spiritual advisor who is worthy of him.

I'm not so sure that ANYONE has a true understanding of Christianity, and if you feel otherwise, I'd suggest you probably don't, either.

Brian--6.2-do you think the man who led Obama to Christ acts in a Christian manner?

What difference does it make? Who are you to criticize how someone is led to Christ? Who are you to judge? I do know that the man who led Obama to Christ is NOT Obama, though.

That is true. It is also true that Obama aligned with Wright until he found it politically expedient to renounce him. That speaks to Obama's character -- lack thereof, actually.

O found the Reverend Wright validated his religion until it was convenient.

lisaed, Discussing inequality and economic injustice doesn't necessarily lead to division.
Why is it that you think talking about the problem (I'm referring to the inequality, etc.) won't help?
You seem like a rational person who has too much to think & respond on this forum.
Sit back, enjoy the fiery debate for once.

It is also true that Obama aligned with Wright until he found it politically expedient to renounce him. That speaks to Obama's character -- lack thereof, actually.

Absolutely untrue. He stuck by him until Wright threw him under the bus. I think that speaks VOLUMES of his character.

SS--6.7--and it doesn't necessarily lead to peace love and rock and roll either---at TUCC judging the congregants' reaction cheering for the hateful remarks of Reverend Pfleger-- discussion of racial issues in that church at least seems from the outside looking in to flame racial divisions.

But what does that have to do with inequality and injustice? Many churches (presumably including some right-wing ones!) care about the poor without resorting to this sort of rhetoric. Rev. Wright did good work for the poor and the disenfranchised. He deserves credit for it. And he's not "a black nationalist/separatist." He just sees race as the fore dividing line of American society, that those born with dark skin will never be able to truly succeed in America. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of misery and one that Obama eloquently rejected in Philly (though one wonders if he really wasn't aware of said philosophy during the last 20 years.)

As for the idea that Rev. Wright is the one who abandoned Obama, this is kool-aid thinking. Rev. Wright has always been Rev. Wright. When Obama ran for president, he wanted the Rev. to pretty much shut up and act mainstream, to suit Obama's political ambition. When it became clear to him that Wright wouldn't do that, that he wouldn't change his personality, Obama abandoned him. And then his church.

Why did Obama expose himself and his family to this black liberation theology for so long if he didn't at least sympathize with it?

I would guess politics. I can't know for sure, but I would guess that Obama, a black guy raised by whites, with no father figure, an exotic name and no connection to the community he wanted to represent, was attracted to Wright's self-confidence and liberal social activism. He also figured that being associated with this church would give him "street cred" and help him get elected. Which it did. Until now.

Ooooh, Obama, a senator running for president is a politician. Stop the presses!

There was a heavy political element to his involvement in that church. I don't think Obama shares Wright's views on race (it'd be bizarre if he did given how far Obama has gone) and its obvious they have deep political differences.

Wright was angered by Obama's Philly speech and, realistically, can you blame him? Rev. Wright showed Jesus to Obama. He baptized Obama's children. He gave him legitimacy in the community. And then, in front of a national audience, Obama denounces him. After having sat in his church for 20 years and listening to Wright's sermons.

TJG - 6.14---are you conceding then that Obama contrary to what he and his camp tells us is just another politician?

Blasphemy!!!

Well, yea. Its a complicated situation. Obviously Obama could never have been elected if Wright remained his preacher - the main is a time bomb. But Obama should have left the church a long time ago and found another, more mainstream church in Chi-town. I'm sure there are plenty of African-American churches that don't obsess about race as much. Instead, he left when he ran for president.

Yes, Obama is a politician, who said otherwise? He's not from the DC of lobbyists the usual crowd, which is a good thing. Nice try at taking him out of context yet again. But I guess you guys can't make a point being honest about his words, right?

lisa:

are you conceding then that Obama contrary to what he and his camp tells us is just another politician?

Hell no. He's a great politician.

He's not from the DC of lobbyists the usual crowd, which is a good thing.

Well, don't bet your underwear that Obama is bleached clean.

Hell no. He's a great politician.

Professor, he is not a great politician, he is a great orator w/deep voice but unable to close the deal a long time ago.

Jack, what's this thing that Hillary owes money and she can't pay with her private funds and has to rely in/on Obama?

Please explain. I am almost graduating in Politics. I have a kid that is a Political Science kid and he does not want to talk about our system.

det:

Oh lordy lord, you ask the hardest questions.

Obama cannot give Hillary money except for the same two thousand dollar everyone can give. He can help her raise money by putting some of his resources at her disposal. That is, he can ask his primary donors to now also donate to Hillary, he can loan her his donor list, they do joint fundraising, etc., etc.

Hillary CAN pay with private funds, it's just that ... she'd rather not. If I remember the law correctly, she can pay her campaign bills over the course of as long as she wants, as long as her creditors allow EXCEPT the loan to herself, which must be paid this year.

The bottom line that is all baloney the McCain/Feingold Law for soft money.

Thanks Professor.

det:

Well, that's not quite the way I'd put it, but ... Yeah.

:^{)>

If Obama wants to win he should read youe column every day.

I agree. He needs to understand how the spin-masters operate in order counter them.

Lisaed, we think alike! Same reason I watch Fox regularly. :)

lisa,

Your dad reads your NV articles here?

I hope he hasn't seen a few of my comments to you here (you know what I mean) =).

Hetep and Respect, Aunk.

In case you want to see more then just the corporate media's loop of Father Mikes talk

I can assure you that Lisa and her peers won't want to.

But thanks from the rest of us, Aunk.

Hetep and Respect nearing, you are welcome good spirit. So far you seem to be right.

It is sufficient that Cultural Humanist like yourself find it useful. If a few conservatives like McClellan who are disconnecting from the bush/McCain American suicide mission improve their Cultural Literacy that is cool to.

You know, Aunk, I have a great deal of respect for and want to wrap my arms around men like McClellan.

He was at the heart of the neo-cons agenda and his heart or maybe his soul spoke with a small voice and told him to consider the other side.

He considered and sought out the truth.

He found it and we on the side that he fought so long against should embrace him!

Unless you were there, Lisa, you have no grounding for this:

Nearing -13.3---sorry but McClellan was not a player (that's part of the reason he's now disgruntled); and

It'll be interesting to go back through newsvine's archives and find all of the seeded articles about how much of a non-player McClellan was back when he was still in the good graces of the Bush administration from all those who are NOW saying that he's just "disgruntled" and that they never really much liked him.

I'm sure there are just tons and tons of those laying around, right?

If you're not with Bush -- you're disgruntled.

Another relevant det comment.

WTF?

Hetep and Respect TheJonesGirl, it is interesting to note how those who have something to say against McClellan's revelations have nothing to say.

Another relevant det comment

.

Endless list

WTF?

What Wednesday, Thursday and Friday have to do?

it is interesting to note how those who have something to say against McClellan's revelations have nothing to say

.

I consider McClellan a guy with an insignificant personality. Good luck w/his book, I will not going to buy it.

Hetep and Respect determined, If I understand you, you think bush/McCain and forty thieves were and are telling the truth about the war and had nothing to do with outing a CIA agent.

If you are siding with the bush insignificant personality, against the judgment of 80% of the American people and 90% of the world's population then I guess it is good that you have gone on the record for all time.

read your post 4 times and still don't get it, maybe because I am very tired.

Hetep and Respect determined, I know what it feels like to be determined to read when I am over tired. Feel free to ask your question when you are rested enough to formulate on. I hope I can clear up whatever confusion I caused.

lisa:

He never said he'd never wear a lapel pin. In fact, he said the opposite.

Here's what caught my eye in the transcript, emphasis added:

I had a long conversation with Michelle and also had a long conversation with Reverend Moss. We prayed on it and you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign. My suspicion at that time, and Michelle, I think, shared this concern, was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president.

No, nearing, you insist on changing the topic at hand and discussing talking points. Then you claim victory when you've no takers. You remember -- you tried that stunt with me.

What 'talking point' are you referring to?

lisa:

The flag pin is a small issue. He was right to take it off and right to put it back on.

I really don't understand TUCC's behavior unless, as I said elsewhere, they're deliberately sabotaging Obama's efforts. Seems like a rational independent Protestant church would go out of their way not interfere with the possibilty that one of their congregants would be President of the United States. I doubt the North Phoenix Baptist Church has said anything remotely controversial lately (although I haven't checked for a couple of months).

And while issues are important - the election is not going to turn on those. Jfxgillis wrote an article sometime ago about how issues are not the determining factor in Presidential elections and that is not lisaed's fault by any stretch of the imagination.

They are if you are perpetuating the garbage as being important.

This country is going down the crapper because of the administration we have now and all you can find to seed are articles about wedge-issues. Things that make no difference in the long run.

Three years from now when President Obama is working like a dog to try to correct some of the huge problems we have now, who is going to care what damn church he goes to?

Get a grip on reality.

Wedge issues are the Republicans' only hope. They sure can't win on their records on real issues.

I'm sure you burst with pride at keeping these sort of nonsense issues around, Lisa. I mean, when you can't use facts or real issues, but you have to post something about politics, I guess...garbage issues are all your side has and they won't get you anywhere.

Thanks for expounding on my point Jones.

lisaed can deny she is perpetuating the crap by seeding these things, but that is just a part of her snookerdom..

When all else fails, pretend you are charming, I guess, nearing. :)

I almost feel sorry for the Bush faithful....but not quite.

I almost feel sorry for the Bush faithful....but not quite.

The saddest part of this type of thread coming from her is that I think (I say think because it is only a guess, I haven't seen real proof) that Lisa is an intelligent person.

It is always saddest when the intelligent get duped by the MSM and the monied powers behind it.

It can't be easy to come to the conclusion that the party you supported is corrupt, greedy and guilty of horrid things, either. What are the seven stages of grief? I think we see here the example of several of them...

It can't be easy to come to the conclusion that the party you supported is corrupt,

even more difficult when you are stubborn and arrogant.

lisa:

do you think TUCC is sabotaging Obama's campaign because as others like Huckabee have said that a black man in the White House would be bad for business?

At this point, although I can't rule it out, I doubt that. They just don't seem to get that everyone's watching. Like I said on the other thread, I was flabbergasted by the Pfelger video.

H&R nearing I props for fighting the good fight. $5 a gallon gas will wake up the sleeping giants and they will drive us in the new direction, issues.

Issues? Obama hasn't hurdled his character flaws yet.

As you're not planning on voting for him, backroads, I doubt very much that Obama cares how you feel about his character. Millions of people who plan to vote for him also care little about your perception.

Hetep and Respect backroads, did you vote for bush?: if so, you should never mention the words character flaws again in your life time. Remember bush putting fire crackers in the anus of frogs for fun. or click here for a good view of Republican character.

Issues? Obama hasn't hurdled his character flaws yet.

Don't allow people to spin you into wasting your time on non-issue personality stuff. You must bring your mind off the back roads of spin and onto the American main highway of real people and real issues. Here is a real American with real issues. Who are you going to vote for and how will that person help this American and her state? That is the issue.

Brian, millions of Obama supporters apparently care little about Clinton supporter perceptions. And you actually think that doesn't matter as well? Amazing, and humorous.

Aunk, character means a great deal and that's why I'm amazed Obama supporters don't want to discuss it.

did you vote for bush?: if so, you should never mention the words character flaws again in your life time.

hear hear.

You would do well to consider the flaws in the candidate you embrace unless you perceive him as a member of the revenge party and subscribe to the notions that Obama has only recently "renounced."

Why don't you enlighten me about those faults?

Can we talk about our economy and the war, for starters?

For starters is convenient that the candidate O learns that the USA has only 50 States and not 57 like the steak sauce.

As always, determined0a1 -- a nice relevant comment.

Goooooooooood Mooooooooorming, Mr. Ford.

Now, what were you saying about my comment? .

As you're not planning on voting for him, backroads, I doubt very much that Obama cares how you feel about his character. Millions of people who plan to vote for him also care little about your perception.

Isn't he the new Unit er and the President of all?

Check the Math and not the Polls.

I really don't understand TUCC's behavior unless, as I said elsewhere, they're deliberately sabotaging Obama's efforts

gillis,

I'm with you on this. I can't understand why these rogue reverands keep coming out with these strange racial attacks, which only hurt Obama, and provide great video for anti-Obama political ads, which are going to generate once the general election campaign gets going.

I think it may be Wright and Fleghar may just be having ego issues, and can't bypass the opportunity to have their 15 minutes of national fame.

Why don't you focus on your own party's problems, Lisa?

You mean anger like this?

It's always funny when I hear people say Obama's supporters are nutzoid. That lady is certifiable.

I'm sure you feel confident to speak for African-Americans, Lisa.

You think Obama would be smart enough to learn from our President's mistakes.....

Nah, I havent listening so far him explaining about the 57 (steak sauce) States.

You do that every time you assume Obama and the rest of the congregation's reasons for going to that church.

I leave that perspective to be offered by my friend Jazzman.

He's free to speak "as" an African American, but he's not free to speak "for" African Americans. If anything, he seems to be at odds with the African American perspective, when it comes to Obama.

I'm simply saying -- why on earth should you think he speaks for African Americans? I've seen that an awful lot, lately. A black republican or a prominent black scholar speaks out against Obama, someone seeds the article as if to say: "See, even black people don't buy into Obama's rhetoric."

The numbers simply don't support that. Or, someone will say: "I know plenty of black people who don't support Obama." Well, okay: The vote doesn't seem to reflect that mindset, though. It's the political version of trotting out one climate expert with a dissenting view on global warming, as though this somehow means something, in the bigger picture.

Brian-14.44-and good for Jazzman---for having the guts to stand on his own principles despite pressures to support someone blindly simply because of the color of his skin.

And shame on YOU for alleging that everyone else is simply voting based on the color of his skin. You have a pretty dim view of those who don't share your views about Obama.

EDIT:

TJG -- don't bother answering her question in comment #14.46. I answered, and she didn't respond to my answer. It's apparently a rhetorical question.

He's free to speak "as" an African American, but he's not free to speak "for" African Americans.

Brian,

That's true, I haven't declared myself a spokesman/leader for the black community (like many others in America).

If anything, he seems to be at odds with the African American perspective, when it comes to Obama.

I haven't made any anti-Obama comments on this thread.

My comments have mainly been about religion in general, and I have criticized his former so called pastors for their remarks.

I'm totally supporting Obama's nomination, as an equal opportunity issue.

But I'm not a registered Democrat or Republican, so you won't see me swooning over politicians.

In the end they all have one thing in common.

They are politicians.

jazz 14.34:

I think it may be Wright and Fleghar may just be having ego issues, and can't bypass the opportunity to have their 15 minutes of national fame.

You know, that's a great point.

Without, of course, commenting on the actual theological content, furthermore, could they not also see the added visibility as a Gift from God in the spreading of their interpretation of the Gospel?

They are politicians.

Someone has to be. I know I don't have the stones for the job. At any rate, it's hard to keep track of who is arguing what on this thread, as I've seen people who are united in their dislike of Obama spar on their views on other candidates and I'm having enough trouble keeping track of who is responding to my comments with what argument. So, I apologize if I've misinterpreted your stance on the issue relating to Obama's candidacy.

lisa:

Er. I'd rather not comment on theological content. Seriously. The "social" part I'm fine with; it's the "Gospel" part that is a can of worms I don't want to take a position on.

If anything, he seems to be at odds with the African American perspective, when it comes to Obama.

If Jazz is the candidate for the Dems I will vote for him first than for McCain. I stand by a good and fair African-American.

could they not also see the added visibility as a Gift from God in the spreading of their interpretation of the Gospel?

gillis,

What Gospel?

These guys are making political statements, and it just happens to be in a Church. Other than that, I don't see any connection.

If Jazz is the candidate for the Dems I will vote for him first than for McCain

Senora,

Thanks, but I'll accept the nomination as an Independent =)

jazz:

Yeah, I know, but the point is, they see it as part-and-parcel of preaching the Gospel.

Frankly, I don't see this "Wealth Gospel" interpretation of the Gospel as especially valid either, but I don't doubt the sincerity of those proposing it. They believe they're preaching the Gospel, just like Rev. Wright believes he's preaching it.

If they think they're spreading the Word, then they don't care if Obama is damaged, right?

Frankly, I don't see this "Wealth Gospel" interpretation of the Gospel as especially valid either, but I don't doubt the sincerity of those proposing it.

gillis,

When I was growing up, it was known in the black community, as the name it and claim it Gospel

Rev Ike was the big name in the scam back then:

Reverend Ike

I think his appeal has diminished some since I was a kid, but he's still around (unfortunately).

for having the guts to stand on his own principles despite pressures to support someone blindly simply because of the color of his skin

Please refrain from such ignorant and simplistic implications.

Jack---do you not agree that Obama decided to start wearing the pin so that it would no longer be used as a frequent and effective talking point against him?

No doubt. But the fact that he was attacked for that and that he felt he had to put the thing back on speaks to how childish our political discourse has become.

That's right, Happyblue.

Fact, the current administration manipulated the people in America into a war in Iraq because they counted on the fact that the people would be ignorant of the facts.

Well, not that fast. Is it our fault that the Congress did not know what the heck were they reading? Pass the reading glasses around or give remedial classes.

I find it interesting that mostly white people have a problem with this particular church

.

Nah, just curiosity about the Reverend and his new home w/X (I think that I read 7) garages in a gated community.

Is it our fault that the Congress did not know what the heck were they reading?

Um, some didn't even read the intelligence. I believe Clinton decided to meet with her staff instead, and decide what was the best thing to do politically.

Um, some didn't even read the intelligence

.

Excuses. Our Congress think that we are a bunch of ignorants. The Clinton admin. bombed Iraq and blasted that he was a dangerous man.

I believe Clinton decided to meet with her staff instead, and decide what was the best thing to do politically.

More rotten baloney of excuses. This was a political issue and she gave her opinion. Excuses and excuses now.

The way that the General Petraeus was treated by Hill was despicable and O plans not to consult the Generals but sit down with Mahmoud as he, O is Jesus that could convert the water in wine..

O plans not to consult the Generals

That is simply untrue.

Check first O's statements about it. He said that he will decide w/o consultation. This point brought by him when O started his political campaign was my first step to think that O does not know what is talking about. Then.....he changed his position, as usual.

As the Commander and Chief, he makes the decisions. However, he has stated, on several occasions, that he will in fact consult with the Generals on the strategy, contrary to what you're saying.

I was saying in one of the first Senator Obama's speeches. Like usual, he changed his position and he does not feel comfortable when asked.

If you want to talk changing positions, look no further than McCain.

McCrazy has jumped that fence more than a jackrabbit.

Ah, Lisa ignores the point. Again.

A little birdie told me newsvine does not like nicknames used for our Presidential candidates---and this goes for candidates on both sides of the aisle.

It's called political humor.

What if I said, "McCain is crazy." Is that more to your liking? (He does want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, doesn't he?)

McCrazy has more panache.

It's not really "ignoring the point" it's "being annoyed enough by a silly bit of name-calling to not want to even bother to FIND a point" in the comment.

I didn't like it when someone else was doing it (though, she made a point to do it in every single comment about every single politician she didn't like) and therefore won't stick up for it just because it's McCain.

The fact is, Emily asked the other person not to drop stupid names that do nothing more than distract from a discussion, so others should refrain from doing so as well. (You'd think people would learn that they're taken more seriously when they don't treat everything as some sort of stupid joke that isn't even that funny in the first place.)

If McCain is crazy, say he's crazy, and then explain why. That way, someone actually has to rebut your claim with a better argument, rather than falling back on dwelling on the stupid name-calling.

Emily asked the other person not to drop stupid names that do nothing more than distract from a discussion, so others should refrain from doing so as well. (You'd think people would learn that they're taken more seriously when they don't treat everything as some sort of stupid joke that isn't even that funny in the first place.)

The fact is that I (determined0a1) asked Emily the question and we discussed via e-mail. It wasn't a distraction, Mr. Ford, it was just that ysota did not like it even when I was fair w/the three candidates at that time.

The fact is that I (determined0a1) asked Emily the question and we discussed via e-mail. It wasn't a distraction, Mr. Ford

If it wasn't a distraction then 1) why did you ask about it and 2) why did she suggest an alternative?

I'm telling you though, it was a distraction: It distracted from whatever intelligent point you may have been making.

Maybe was the Maureen Dowd's inside me that use nicknames in her columns and is the only thing that I miss from the NYT forums and it was that the posters weren't thin skinners.

.

You're completely missing the point. I'm not OFFENDED at the name-calling. It's hard to get offended about something that doesn't rise above the level of kindergarten. I don't read Dowd because I find the name-calling sophomoric. I find it hard to believe that someone is paid to write for a living and can't come up with something better as a schtick than making up funny names which aren't really all that clever or funny.

What makes it annoying is that dropping a name like that suddenly makes the debate ABOUT the kindergarten name-calling, and suddenly, rational people are having a really dumb argument about whether we should be calling people names, rather than about the topic at hand. (Sort of like right now. See how it works? It's a distraction, and if I didn't know better, I'd suspect that it was MEANT to be a distraction.)

Oh meta, my meta.

Brian:

Good call.

det:

I defended your nicknames to Emily, but once she ruled, that was the rule.

nearing:

Rule is, no demeaning or insulting nicknames.

I was curious that our President was called criminal, illiterate, monkey (remember few) and never the lsota raised their "it's sophomoric, childish or in bad taste". That was my point all over.

The Funnel Syndrome in place.

Thanks Professor and lisa.

Senora,

Bush has also been referred to as Hitler and a Nazi on NV many time. But I think Bill Harrison recently got a policy change done on that.

jazz,

I know all of the name callings from the lsota even addressing us and now they are "purists or puritans".

Maybe was the Maureen Dowd's inside me that use nicknames in her columns and is the only thing that I miss from the NYT forums and it was that the posters weren't thin skinners.

Man, I would love to see Maureen Dowd fired. I don't see any value in her writing. She just insults politicians - many of them Democrats! - for no reason and using the most childish names.

I have brought up the point of name-calling before. I think you can argue against McCain's beliefs without calling him McCrazy just like you can protest Obama's ideas without calling him Obummer or Osama. Once you start that, it's only a little while before you speculate that the candidate's momma be so fat that her blood type is Ragu.

Or something.

Plegler got the lines, I think, from SNL. I thought when watched the performance that it might be casualties, that hard the attendants were laughing.

lisa:

Why would he pick a church without knowing whether the family will be in Chicago or Washington?

No matter "which" Church he were to choose between now and then, those who want to find a motive in his choice will do so. As has been said, at this point, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he chooses a more mainstream "white" Church, he'll be pandering. If he does this, he'll be accused of that. Putting off the choice, attending Church when he can is the best bet for him now.

But, either way, there will be articles for you to seed trying to convince everyone else that he's made the WRONG choice.

lisa:

It's not that unusual for non-denomiational Protestants not to have one church, or for such folk to "shop" for a while.

Neither Reagan nor Bill Clinton had a settled church while in the WH, although oddly enough, Hillary DID as First Lady.

If he chooses a more mainstream "white" Church, he'll be pandering. If he does this, he'll be accused of that.

Nah, plenty of fainting blondes behind his back.

What's the idea of giving a baby to any political candidate for holding?

pretty confident now isn't he?

And with good reason.

if Obama is such a good Christian he'd want to have a church to associate with between now and 8 months from now

Wow, so now you're challenging his faith? Your attacks never cease to amaze me.

The word "if" in your statement seems to challenge the notion Obama is "a good Christian."

if Obama is such a good Christian he'd want to have a church to associate with between now and 8 months from now.

A persons relationship with God should have NOTHING to do with a church. Middlemen be damned.

People are in communion with each other every day, in their interactions. Who needs a building to validate themselves as Christians?

Obama used the Church of the Rev Wright for the purpose to validate a religion. How come Oprah lef? You see business or politicians have to have a clean track in their lives now that the internet and 24/7 news exist.

GWB and his faith.

At this moment I don't know the Church that the President is affiliated. What I mean is that his faith never was a highlighted item for preaching chicken coming to roost. The issue is that the sermon was just after 9/11/01.

Of course he is. See Obama's Hope book. Lot of things there to make the head spin and the Left Wing go gaga.