View Full Version : Obama Slipping
Miss_Luscious
08-25-2008, 06:21 AM
The difference in your argument and Obama is that you can not choose your family; while you CAN choose friends and ministers.
Sorry, but either Obama is as dumb as a bag of hammers and seriously didn't know what Wright's agenda is/was; or on some level Obama agrees with him and his "Black Liberation Theology" bullshit. Either way I don't want him as Prez.
Okay then. My best friend has some of the same beliefs as Rev Wright. I'm still her friend. So which one am I? Dumb and unaware of her "agenda" (what is Rev Wrights agenda anyway? I'm asking a serious question.) or in agreement with her beliefs? How about even though she says and thinks some crazy shit she's still a good friend and I still love her?
Are you the only person in the world who doesn't have a friend who has some repugnant beliefs that you don't agree with? Have you never said or done some things that could be construed as hateful or racist?
If you go to church, do you agree with every single thing that comes out of you minister's mouth? Should be people be expected to agree with everything their church leaders say or do? If they disagree with any small part, should they then abandon the church?
Are you as upset with the people who follow Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson (both of whom have said some FOUL shit)?
Do you now think that people like Oprah have this nefarious Anti-American, hateful, racist "agenda" too?
Do you realize that many of the clips of Rev. Wright were of him quoting and paraphrasing different sources including Martin Luther King Jr., Edward Peck and the Bible itself?
I am asking serious questions and I'm not trying to be a smart ass at all. Also, calling Black Liberation Theology bullshit is a bit offensive. It's just as reputable as the other sects of Christianity and you shouldn't be so flippant (lest you be called a hateful racist!).
Zia_Abq
08-25-2008, 09:59 AM
We can sit here and go back and forth with all our partisian arguments but its a bit of a waste of time really. Entertaining maybe but not all that useful in the long run.
Honestly, I think it boils down to one basic question. Do you think they country is in better or worse shape than it was 7 1/2 years ago?
If you think things are better then vote for Republicans.
If you think things are worse then vote for the Dems.
miabella
08-25-2008, 11:37 AM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
best electoral projection (who'd win if the election were held today) site out there. i'd keep an eye there to find out who's going to win the election (although historically, the important polling that tracks strongly to voting likelihood comes out after the conventions).
Miss_Luscious
08-25-2008, 12:40 PM
We can sit here and go back and forth with all our partisian arguments but its a bit of a waste of time really. Entertaining maybe but not all that useful in the long run.
Honestly, I think it boils down to one basic question. Do you think they country is in better or worse shape than it was 7 1/2 years ago?
If you think things are better then vote for Republicans.
If you think things are worse then vote for the Dems.
This pretty much sums it up.
Melonie
08-25-2008, 03:32 PM
^^^ but, unfortunately, no matter which party you choose to vote for it's extremely likely that the country will be in worse shape 4 years from now !
G-Real
08-25-2008, 03:36 PM
^^^ but, unfortunately, no matter which party you choose to vote for it's extremely likely that the country will be in worse shape 4 years from now !
so are you saying that if McCain won, as the republican/"conservative" and we're worse off 4 years from now, and he runs for a 2nd term, you would vote democrat??
Richard_Head
08-25-2008, 06:21 PM
so are you saying that if McCain won, as the republican/"conservative" and we're worse off 4 years from now, and he runs for a 2nd term, you would vote democrat??No, I'm guessing she'd say "but it would have been worse with Obama" and vote republican again. But I guess I'd better let her speak for herself.
kitana
08-25-2008, 06:28 PM
Okay then. My best friend has some of the same beliefs as Rev Wright. I'm still her friend. So which one am I? Dumb and unaware of her "agenda" (what is Rev Wrights agenda anyway? I'm asking a serious question.) or in agreement with her beliefs? How about even though she says and thinks some crazy shit she's still a good friend and I still love her?
You have friends that believe that "whitey" should be killed?! And that she will ONLY accept love from G-d if that G-d is black and thinks that if he is not with you, he is against you and must be killed?!
I can't have friends like that sorry. IMO, that's no different than Nazi beliefs and we see what happened when Nazi's gained power and control of their area.
Are you the only person in the world who doesn't have a friend who has some repugnant beliefs that you don't agree with? Have you never said or done some things that could be construed as hateful or racist?
I have had friends in the past that were racist, yes. But as an adult; I CHOOSE who I want close to me, and I choose not to allow such polluted people with racist mindsets into my circle. I am sure I have, that is part of being human, but I haven't wished death upon a whole culture or race of peoples just cause of their differences.
If you go to church, do you agree with every single thing that comes out of you minister's mouth? Should be people be expected to agree with everything their church leaders say or do? If they disagree with any small part, should they then abandon the church?
I do agree with my Rabbi. Love of G-d and protection of life (ALL life) should be ALL humanity's beliefs.
Are you as upset with the people who follow Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson (both of whom have said some FOUL shit)?
Do you now think that people like Oprah have this nefarious Anti-American, hateful, racist "agenda" too?[/quote]
I am upset with Fallwell, Robertson, and other pseudo-spiritual people are full of it, lol.
Do you realize that many of the clips of Rev. Wright were of him quoting and paraphrasing different sources including Martin Luther King Jr., Edward Peck and the Bible itself?
I know that some of the "quotes" were perverted, yes; but that still doesn't change that the basic concept is one of racist supremacy.
I am asking serious questions and I'm not trying to be a smart ass at all. Also, calling Black Liberation Theology bullshit is a bit offensive. It's just as reputable as the other sects of Christianity and you shouldn't be so flippant (lest you be called a hateful racist!).
I hardly find this reputable:
"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."
Cone’s view is that Jesus was black, which he felt was a very important view of black people to see. (Clearly in the Bible Jesus was a JEW!)
"It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it...But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is 'the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.' Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?...Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free."
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."
This is the stuff (plus much more I don't have time to list), which I am 110% against. I don't feel it is ANY more "reputable" than Scientology, rofl.
Jay Zeno
08-25-2008, 06:43 PM
Honestly, I think it boils down to one basic question. Do you think they country is in better or worse shape than it was 7 1/2 years ago? Republican Ronald Reagan used that question (shortened to four years) to defeat Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980, after Carter's first term.
I didn't think it was completely valid then, nor do I now. However, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If the Republicans accepted its success as valid then, they deserve its revival now.
glambman
08-25-2008, 08:28 PM
Actually, when a national political figure gets that wrong, it shows he is a moron. The whole quote was something like "we've been to 57 states, only two to go". Even if he meant to say 47, then he thinks there are 49 states, which would also make him pretty dumb. It's not terribly significant either way.
We've been to 57 states, 1 more to go, they won't let me go to Alaska and Hawaii.
57 + 1 + 2 = 60 :P
miabella
08-26-2008, 12:24 AM
You have friends that believe that "whitey" should be killed?! And that she will ONLY accept love from G-d if that G-d is black and thinks that if he is not with you, he is against you and must be killed?!
I can't have friends like that sorry. IMO, that's no different than Nazi beliefs and we see what happened when Nazi's gained power and control of their area.
I have had friends in the past that were racist, yes. But as an adult; I CHOOSE who I want close to me, and I choose not to allow such polluted people with racist mindsets into my circle. I am sure I have, that is part of being human, but I haven't wished death upon a whole culture or race of peoples just cause of their differences.
I do agree with my Rabbi. Love of G-d and protection of life (ALL life) should be ALL humanity's beliefs.
Are you as upset with the people who follow Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson (both of whom have said some FOUL shit)?
Do you now think that people like Oprah have this nefarious Anti-American, hateful, racist "agenda" too?
I am upset with Fallwell, Robertson, and other pseudo-spiritual people are full of it, lol.
I know that some of the "quotes" were perverted, yes; but that still doesn't change that the basic concept is one of racist supremacy.
I hardly find this reputable:
"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."
Cone’s view is that Jesus was black, which he felt was a very important view of black people to see. (Clearly in the Bible Jesus was a JEW!)
"It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it...But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is 'the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.' Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?...Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free."
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."
This is the stuff (plus much more I don't have time to list), which I am 110% against. I don't feel it is ANY more "reputable" than Scientology, rofl.
tl;dr, except for the part where you forget that Jews come in all colors, including black. The oldest known Jewish community is black (Ethiopian).
not to mention the Sephardim (Spanish/Moorish/Arab-descended Jews).
Jesus was definitely not Nordic-European in appearance. He was almost certainly brown, but not black/African in look (although He may well have rocked a J-ewfro), since he looked like average folk, and in that area, at that time, they were pretty brown.
that's all. carry on with the slingage of mud.
(deleted and reposted to catch a stray quote).
NinaDaisy
08-26-2008, 12:30 AM
It's gonna be a tight race. Period.
We'll see soon enough...
Miss_Luscious
08-26-2008, 06:28 AM
You have friends that believe that "whitey" should be killed?! And that she will ONLY accept love from G-d if that G-d is black and thinks that if he is not with you, he is against you and must be killed?!
I can't have friends like that sorry. IMO, that's no different than Nazi beliefs and we see what happened when Nazi's gained power and control of their area.
Whoa whoa whoa. When did Rev Wright ever call for the killing of "whitey"? I should have clarified my statement before I guess. I should have said my friend agrees with some of Rev. Wrights statements. My friend agrees that white people have mistreated people of other races and that they are now facing the consequesnses of their actions (karma). She also believes that the government created and/or spead AIDs to commmunities they deemed unwanted (gays, minorities) and indroduced crack to the black community. She doesn't think all whites should die though adn neither does Rev. Wright. Seriously, where did you get that idea and why are you presenting it as fact? Have you read ANY of the actual facts?
I do agree with my Rabbi. Love of G-d and protection of life (ALL life) should be ALL humanity's beliefs.
Since I assume you're Jewish...umm... have you read the Old Testament? There was a whole lotta killing because people had different beliefs. Also, is that all you Rabbi ever says? He has never said ANYTHING that you disagree with? If not, then bravo! Many people look for places or worship that totally encompass their beliefs and that they can agree with 100%. I'm not being facetious; I've been looking for such a place for YEARS.
I know that some of the "quotes" were perverted, yes; but that still doesn't change that the basic concept is one of racist supremacy.
NONE of what you posted are the beliefs of Trinity United Church of Christ (Rev. Wright's church).This straight form the horses mouth:
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.
• Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.
• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
Even though Cone may have been a wacko (he was) the TUCC took the posititve ideas and centered their teachings around them. To be fair, All religions have been used by people to justify all kinds of horrible things but that doesn't make the whole religion bad.
Here (http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm) is the link for you. Take a look at it and then try to tie in this "kill whitey" mess you're talking about.
Also, even though Jesus was a Jew, he most certainly was not white as was posted earlier. He wasn't an African but he wasn't the guy you see in movies either. Think more along the lines of Arabic. So yeah, Jesus was "colored" for lack of a better word.
For the record, I am not religious or spiritual or anything. I'm not saying one religion is better or worse than the others. I'm just debating.
glambman
08-26-2008, 08:26 AM
tl;dr, except for the part where you forget that Jews come in all colors, including black. The oldest known Jewish community is black (Ethiopian).
not to mention the Sephardim (Spanish/Moorish/Arab-descended Jews).
Jesus was definitely not Nordic-European in appearance. He was almost certainly brown, but not black/African in look (although He may well have rocked a J-ewfro), since he looked like average folk, and in that area, at that time, they were pretty brown.
that's all. carry on with the slingage of mud.
(deleted and reposted to catch a stray quote).
lol the Ethiopian Jews were descendant from Middle Eastern Jews.
lol Sephardim. They would still have been descendant from Middle Eastern Jews.
Yes, a little browner, but he wasn't black.
And alot of people think english is its own group (in language0, but in actuality, it is a form of German.
glambman
08-26-2008, 08:43 AM
Here (http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm) is the link for you. Take a look at it and then try to tie in this "kill whitey" mess you're talking about.
lololol the edited version. Let me ask you this, why did they takje down Wright's speeches, and such, from the website.
Since you want to use it, look at this.....http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
What do you think that means?
My dad's mom was from Ireland, his dad was native american (an injun), what do I owe the blacks? Considering we have more blacks through immigration in the last 50 years, how are all blacks owed something?
And while it may have existed in some form for hundreds of years, Liberation Theology, in the modern sense/ interpretation, was formed in the 60's.
The USSR knew that it is easier to gain control over a country by taking over and controlling the religious institutions rather than a full scale invasion.
kitana
08-26-2008, 08:48 AM
lololol the edited version. Let me ask you this, why did they takje down Wright's speeches, and such, from the website.
Since you want to use it, look at this.....http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
What do you think that means?
My dad's mom was from Ireland, his dad was native american (an injun), what do I owe the blacks? Considering we have more blacks through immigration in the last 50 years, how are all blacks owed something?
And while it may have existed in some form for hundreds of years, Liberation Theology, in the modern sense/ interpretation, was formed in the 60's.
The USSR knew that it is easier to gain control over a country by taking over and controlling the religious institutions rather than a full scale invasion.
Thank you!
Same here with the Injun blood, only my other side is Scottish, not Irish, lol.
kitana
08-26-2008, 09:09 AM
Whoa whoa whoa. When did Rev Wright ever call for the killing of "whitey"? I should have clarified my statement before I guess. I should have said my friend agrees with some of Rev. Wrights statements. My friend agrees that white people have mistreated people of other races and that they are now facing the consequesnses of their actions (karma). She also believes that the government created and/or spead AIDs to commmunities they deemed unwanted (gays, minorities) and indroduced crack to the black community. She doesn't think all whites should die though adn neither does Rev. Wright. Seriously, where did you get that idea and why are you presenting it as fact? Have you read ANY of the actual facts?
Black Liberation Theology in it's basic tenenants calls for "death to whitey", lol. It's kinda one of their main points. Yeah whites have caused shit, but what race hasn't, INCLUDING blacks? Your friend believes in tin foil conspiracy theories? Yes, I HAVE read the "facts", have you read an unbiased review of BLT?
From James Cone HIMSELF:
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.
Since I assume you're Jewish...umm... have you read the Old Testament? There was a whole lotta killing because people had different beliefs. Also, is that all you Rabbi ever says? He has never said ANYTHING that you disagree with? If not, then bravo! Many people look for places or worship that totally encompass their beliefs and that they can agree with 100%. I'm not being facetious; I've been looking for such a place for YEARS.
Nope, never heard of the Old Testament.::) Nope, not really since I can't understand 3/4 of it since I am not fluent in Hebrew just yet!;D
NONE of what you posted are the beliefs of Trinity United Church of Christ (Rev. Wright's church).This straight form the horses mouth:
I will not argue semantics with you about this, we obviously do not see eye to eye on this, but I have NO respect for any SO CALLED man of faith that is so nonchalant as to say G-d damn ANYTHING, much less the country that gives him the freedom to speak such blasphemy.
Also, even though Jesus was a Jew, he most certainly was not white as was posted earlier. He wasn't an African but he wasn't the guy you see in movies either. Think more along the lines of Arabic. So yeah, Jesus was "colored" for lack of a better word.
For the record, I am not religious or spiritual or anything. I'm not saying one religion is better or worse than the others. I'm just debating.
No, Jesus wasn't white, he was JEWISH. Back then there wasn't different 'races' of Jews, lol. It was only later when the religion spread to other cultures and races and the corners of the world. So he would not have been referred to as black, he would have been called a Jew, nothing more; nothing less.
Miss_Luscious
08-26-2008, 09:44 AM
You keep pointing out what Cone said but the TUCC does not follow all of those beliefs. Why are you refusing to believe that? Why would you rather assume instead of reading the facts? There is such a thing as accepting and adopting good points and
His speaches were taken down because they were being segmented into out of context sound bites.
Here is another (http://bluechristian.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-damn-america-in-biblical-context.html) link (from a Christian website) the explains Rev Wright's comments IN CONTEXT WITH THE BIBLE. Here are a few excerpts:
Here is the sound bite run by ABC and Fox in particular from a sermon Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor in question, preached:
"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. 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."
Now. Replace "America" with Babylon, or Rome, or Israel (the nation God was arguably roughest on of them all). Has the light gone on yet? America is no less liable to judgment than any of these other kingdoms were. America is not "God-blessed" by default. And, in a very real sense, America as a people risks being "God-damned" for reasons much like those Pastor Jeremiah Wright listed. I don't say that for political reasons, but for biblical reasons. And I would note that his final sentence in the above quote -- this not pointed out by any commentator I've heard -- greatly softens what he said before, and makes his commentary into a call to repentance. Worse, however, is the fact that this sound bite is torn out of a sermon which, when heard more completely, makes the above statement far more understandable and theologically defensible.
In short, the sermon entire is a balanced, if intense, call to repentance. We hear these calls to repentance in our white evangelical churches all the time. In fact, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and others went further than Wright went in saying that God's judgment was meted out on 9/11. Their reasons had to do with homosexuality and the ACLU, among other things. Yet in this election cycle, we see them (or those like them, such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley) used by John McCain and the Republican party. It is written about, but without much heat or even general interest in the media.
But back to theology. There are plenty of biblical examples where God through his prophets and preachers calls his people to repentance. Leviticus 26, for instance, offers one such biblical scenario echoed by Pastor Wright's words:
27 But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, 28 I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you. 31 I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. 32 I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33 And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste. [New Revised Standard Version]
This is coming from a white Christian. When taken in context, you can see exactly why it's crazy to get up in arms about "God Damn America".
And no, white people don't owe black people anything. I'm against reparations too but I don't see what that has to do with what you posted glambman.
And can someone please please give me evidence of Rev. Wright or TUCC specifically calling for the death of whites? If not, then that argument doesn't stand. You can not attribute someone else's words to an individual because they share SOME beliefs. I mean, all Southern Baptists aren't evil because the KKK are also members of them. Different factions of religion have different members and different beliefs even if they are rooted similarly and go by the same name. Wright has stated repeatedly that he does not agree with black supremacy. Rather, he, and the TUCC are trying to build black people up.
Miss_Luscious
08-26-2008, 09:44 AM
PS: Jewish is NOT a race.
glambman
08-26-2008, 10:43 AM
His speaches were taken down because they were being segmented into out of context sound bites.
I heard that argument, but Glenn Beck played the whole segments (not soundbytes) and it further reinforced his racism/ bigotry/ etc..
Here is another (http://bluechristian.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-damn-america-in-biblical-context.html) link (from a Christian website) the explains Rev Wright's comments IN CONTEXT WITH THE BIBLE. Here are a few excerpts:
This is coming from a white Christian. When taken in context, you can see exactly why it's crazy to get up in arms about "God Damn America".
And I can pull up links showing a justification of the KKK's beliefs using the Bible, or lib theo from whites in Canada. So what?
How aboot we simplify the matter, show me the proof where the government 'gives them drugs'.
ohh, and here's a standard I use when trying to figure out if someone is a Christian, or just calling themsleves that.....
1 John 4:20 (King James Version)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Pretty simple, ehh?
I mean, all Southern Baptists aren't evil because the KKK are also members of them. Different factions of religion have different members and different beliefs even if they are rooted similarly and go by the same name.
The KKK is not a religion, it is a social club (sic). Also, you forgot to mention they were staunch Democrat Party supporters. Anti Republican. And that they were founded by Masons.
And even though shifts have happened (like blacks going from the Repubs to Dems), it has been the Dems economic/ social policies that have kept the black down. So in a sense, it really hasn't changed. ::)
Miss_Luscious
08-26-2008, 11:42 AM
I heard that argument, but Glenn Beck played the whole segments (not soundbytes) and it further reinforced his racism/ bigotry/ etc..
Oh! Well if Glenn Beck said it was racist then it MUST be true. He's a bastion of sensibility that man. I've read the Bible and I can assure you, what Wright said is in no way out of line with Bible teachings.
And I can pull up links showing a justification of the KKK's beliefs using the Bible, or lib theo from whites in Canada. So what?
I don't understand what you are getting at. Please clarify for me.
How aboot we simplify the matter, show me the proof where the government 'gives them drugs'.
While there is no real proof of the government speading crack in the Black community, there is a basis for the idea that the government has intentionally harmed black people for it's own gain. Please refer to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html). Black people are still wary of the government for this reason (among others) and they don't think it's such a big leap to assume that something like this can or has happened again. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
ohh, and here's a standard I use when trying to figure out if someone is a Christian, or just calling themsleves that.....
1 John 4:20 (King James Version)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Pretty simple, ehh?
I completely agree. I'll say this for the third time. Christians are some of THE MOST un-Christ like people I know. Christianity in itself is pretty un-Christ like. People do and say some fucked up shit "in the name of God".
The KKK is not a religion, it is a social club (sic). Also, you forgot to mention they were staunch Democrat Party supporters. Anti Republican. And that they were founded by Masons.
And even though shifts have happened (like blacks going from the Repubs to Dems), it has been the Dems economic/ social policies that have kept the black down. So in a sense, it really hasn't changed. ::)
I think you may have missed my point. Just because certain members of a group adhere to certain beliefs, it does not mean that ALL memebers of the group agree. All white people don't hate blacks, all followers of Black Liberation Theology don't want whites to be eradicated. However, those are the ones that get attention because they are often the loudest. Do you see what I'm saying?
As far as the things you said about the KKK being Dems back in day,etc: I need you to clarify your point with this too. I don't understand the relevency.
glambman
08-26-2008, 12:21 PM
Me in bold.
Oh! Well if Glenn Beck said it was racist then it MUST be true. He's a bastion of sensibility that man. I've read the Bible and I can assure you, what Wright said is in no way out of line with Bible teachings.
GBeck didn't say anything, he showed the full clips and let us make up our own mind whether or not they were taken out of context. IMO it made Wright look worse.
I don't understand what you are getting at. Please clarify for me.
You provided a link as justification, I can provide links to justify things.
While there is no real proof of the government speading crack in the Black community, there is a basis for the idea that the government has intentionally harmed black people for it's own gain. Please refer to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html). Black people are still wary of the government for this reason (among others) and they don't think it's such a big leap to assume that something like this can or has happened again. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
And there were forced institutionalizing of people, experiments on nonblacks. One example from 50 years ago does not equal 'they are doing it today', nor 'could be doing it today'..
I completely agree. I'll say this for the third time. Christians are some of THE MOST un-Christ like people I know. Christianity in itself is pretty un-Christ like. People do and say some fucked up shit "in the name of God".
But not just in the Christian/ Jewish God's name. They've also done things in the name of science.
I think you may have missed my point. Just because certain members of a group adhere to certain beliefs, it does not mean that ALL memebers of the group agree. All white people don't hate blacks, all followers of Black Liberation Theology don't want whites to be eradicated. However, those are the ones that get attention because they are often the loudest. Do you see what I'm saying?
Yes, 10% of a group give the other 90% a bad name (except politicians, then 90% give the other 10% a bad name).
But BLT is a flawed theology that relies on assumptions and perversions of the bible [when 'christian' based (sic)]. When have they mentioned that after decades/ centuries, white uros only cut out the middle man in the slave trade? Who were the middle men? Other blacks, N. Africans, Arabs.
As far as the things you said about the KKK being Dems back in day,etc: I need you to clarify your point with this too. I don't understand the relevency.
In the olden days, the North were Republican. They had a group known as Radical Republicans, who wanted to force the South to stop slavery (amng other things). Then we had the War of Northern Aggression (you may know it as the Civil War). The North begin changing politically and went Demo.
The Demos were proSlavery and were the party of the South. After the War of Northern Aggression, the KKK was founded, and committed 'terrorist' acts, including against the Repub Party, because they were the party of/ for the blacks.
miabella
08-26-2008, 05:04 PM
lol the Ethiopian Jews were descendant from Middle Eastern Jews.
lol Sephardim. They would still have been descendant from Middle Eastern Jews.
Yes, a little browner, but he wasn't black.
And alot of people think english is its own group (in language0, but in actuality, it is a form of German.
sorry, wrong about the Ethiopian Jews, what with the genetic differences due to being different a ethnicity and all.
i said that the Sephardim had Arab (middle east) origins, as opposed to the 'white'-looking Ashkenazim that most americans believe is the only kind of Jew out there.
Jewish ethnicity is pretty complex and diverse, with quite a few ethnic groups beyond the primarily white ones that are most familiar to americans.
glambman
08-26-2008, 05:28 PM
Me in bold.
sorry, wrong about the Ethiopian Jews, what with the genetic differences due to being different a ethnicity and all.
The oldest reference to Beta Israel is in the 8th/ 9th century AD. Were they there before that, sure. There is compelling evidence. IIRC the book Exodus Decoded puts a compelling case. Solomon's defiling of the Temple, bringing in pagan religions of his wives and concubines. Group took the Arc, and the Beta Israel are the descendants.
i said that the Sephardim had Arab (middle east) origins, as opposed to the 'white'-looking Ashkenazim that most americans believe is the only kind of Jew out there.
wow, after a few hundred years into the A.D. timeline, the Jews lost their land and were expelled. Where do you think they went? yeah, Spain is one place. Muslim Arabs and N Africans also invaded Spain in 711. Spain also expelled all there Jews and thery were gone for hundreds of years.
*****I may be reading you wrong on this point above. There have been DNA tests, and the 'white-looking' ones still have a semetic Y-chromethingee.*****
Jewish ethnicity is pretty complex and diverse, with quite a few ethnic groups beyond the primarily white ones that are most familiar to americans.
Not really, people put the complexity there. There is a 'black' Jewish tribe in South Africa that has a 'Jewish' tradition going back 2500 years. They are called the Lemba.
kitana
08-26-2008, 06:55 PM
PS: Jewish is NOT a race.
I am NOT going to go there with you kiddo.
Jay Zeno
08-26-2008, 08:12 PM
You can't even get scientists to agree on "race." But the traditional "genealogical" Hebrew Jew is Semitic.
The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.
TheSexKitten
08-27-2008, 04:10 PM
I actually think Black Liberation Theology kind of makes sense. Well, the part stating that they can't follow a god who would be the same god to both white oppressors and the black oppressed. It makes sense.
Anyway wtf was the topic again?! Oh. Yeah. Well I don't think Obama wants to "kill whitey," so that's a moot point anyway. ::)
glambman
08-27-2008, 06:15 PM
I actually think Black Liberation Theology kind of makes sense. Well, the part stating that they can't follow a god who would be the same god to both white oppressors and the black oppressed. It makes sense.
Anyway wtf was the topic again?! Oh. Yeah. Well I don't think Obama wants to "kill whitey," so that's a moot point anyway. ::)
But BLT is a catch phrase. It's political, about getting 'into' power and getting 'left wing'. Just another way of trying to go marxist.
Read: Cornel West "Black Theology and Marxist Thought".
Read: John McWhorter "Losing the Race"
If you look into Africa alone, and the BLT, millions of BLACKS who were massacred by BLT blacks (because of antiMarxist views) will disagree about it being good.
bem401
08-28-2008, 05:43 AM
We can sit here and go back and forth with all our partisian arguments but its a bit of a waste of time really. Entertaining maybe but not all that useful in the long run.
Honestly, I think it boils down to one basic question. Do you think they country is in better or worse shape than it was 7 1/2 years ago?
If you think things are better then vote for Republicans.
If you think things are worse then vote for the Dems.
This is not right. Your decision should be based on who you think will make things better ( or less worse in this case ) over the next 4 or 8 years. Of course the only way the Dems can make headway is by attacking Bush, who may actually end up looking pretty good once whichever candidate wins gets through.
In any event, this deplorable convention the dems have been having, complete with radical Marxist strategies straight from Saul Alinsky have just been putting nails in Obama's campaign coffin. It will only get worse for Obama tonight after he appears before 80000 in front of what's already being called the Temple Of Doom.
It's been 3 days now and not a single speaker has cited a single accomplishment of Obama's. That should tell you something.
Mccain will probably screw things up now, but the ball is definitely in his court.
Miss_Luscious
08-28-2008, 10:01 AM
Bem, who are you voting for? You seem to dislike both of the mainstream candidates so I assume you're going third party. I'd like to know who you support and why. Not to debate or anything, I'm genuinely curious.
Zia_Abq
08-28-2008, 03:11 PM
This is not right. Your decision should be based on who you think will make things better Gee, I just looove it when men try to tell me how I should think or what I should do or what my decisions should be based on :sarcastic But whatever, in this case you are stating the same basic concept as I was referring to except you're just using different phrasing.
Zia_Abq
08-28-2008, 03:16 PM
It will only get worse for Obama tonight after he appears before 80000 in front of what's already being called the Temple Of Doom.
Sounds like wishful republican thinking to me and I seriously doubt it will happen either. For that to come to pass his poll numbers will have to drop after tonight and that is not likely to happen even if just by historical standards. Ever heard of the post convention bounce? His number will rise not lower which means things will improve for him not worsen
Jay Zeno
08-28-2008, 04:10 PM
I haven't heard much of the speeches, but what I have heard has been pretty good, except for Caroline Kennedy, who had a terribly flat delivery in introducing Ted Kennedy (Ted Kennedy's speech was energizing for the crowd. Now, I don't particularly care for him. I'm just saying.) The Republicans are going to have to get some real energy going to counter the "energy of change vs. more of the same" theme.
Former President Clinton particularly was effective. You may not like him, or you may think his stat references were wrong, but to the mass of voters out there (who actually had high approval of him as he went out), I believe it had a lot of resonance. I don't personally care how he did, although he's generally been a good speaker and campaigner and could be expected to do well.
G-Real
08-28-2008, 09:35 PM
I haven't heard much of the speeches, but what I have heard has been pretty good, except for Caroline Kennedy, who had a terribly flat delivery in introducing Ted Kennedy (Ted Kennedy's speech was energizing for the crowd. Now, I don't particularly care for him. I'm just saying.) The Republicans are going to have to get some real energy going to counter the "energy of change vs. more of the same" theme.
Former President Clinton particularly was effective. You may not like him, or you may think his stat references were wrong, but to the mass of voters out there (who actually had high approval of him as he went out), I believe it had a lot of resonance. I don't personally care how he did, although he's generally been a good speaker and campaigner and could be expected to do well.
There is an "enthusism gap" between the 2 parties. obviously Dems are excited about their pick. The Reps seemed resigned to the fact that McCain is there pick. Now how will it play out at the RNC?...
bem401
09-02-2008, 05:46 AM
Bem, who are you voting for? You seem to dislike both of the mainstream candidates so I assume you're going third party. I'd like to know who you support and why. Not to debate or anything, I'm genuinely curious.
A third-party vote is a throw-away vote ( actually, RI is so liberal it really doesn't matter who I vote for ) . I will vote for McCain and hold my nose while doing it. I view it more as voting against Obama. To be honest, most of the presidential votes I've cast over my voting lifetime have been votes against one candidate, rather than for the other. I'm more conservative than either of the choices this time around.
And ZA, my statement has nothing to do with the fact that you are female, so why try to turn it into that?
jester214
09-02-2008, 09:13 AM
^Because that's the only way she can knock a perfectly reasonable remark.
Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 09:55 AM
A third-party vote is a throw-away vote ( actually, RI is so liberal it really doesn't matter who I vote for ) . I will vote for McCain and hold my nose while doing it. I view it more as voting against Obama. To be honest, most of the presidential votes I've cast over my voting lifetime have been votes against one candidate, rather than for the other. I'm more conservative than either of the choices this time around.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree about the third party throw away vote. As you can tell, I'm a dirty, bleeding heart, latte-sipping liberal but I wouldn't vote green party because it's just not worth it yet. Maybe in a few years third parties will actually have a chance but as of now, we're stuck with just the two. However, I am certainly voting FOR Obama and not just AGAINST John McCain.
miabella
09-02-2008, 11:14 AM
it hardly matters, obama cracked 50% in recent national polling and his overall numbers have strengthened-- all he has to do is hold steady through this month and he's got the Presidency.
mccain just cannot turn out his base enough to win, not even with a secessionist alaskan pro-life lady on his ticket.
and you can BET you won't be hearing a WORD about a SECESSIONIST'S 'lack of patriotism', compared to, say, the various slings thrown at both of the obamas about how they're not patriotic enough.
i think wanting to secede is pretty unAmerican, and i'd like to think republicans would notice that and be offended (since they like to ride that pony), but of course, nothing's being said about palin's lack of desire to be part of this fine nation.
Richard_Head
09-02-2008, 08:08 PM
mccain just cannot turn out his base enough to win, not even with a secessionist alaskan pro-life lady on his ticket.
and you can BET you won't be hearing a WORD about a SECESSIONIST'S 'lack of patriotism', compared to, say, the various slings thrown at both of the obamas about how they're not patriotic enough.
i think wanting to secede is pretty unAmerican, and i'd like to think republicans would notice that and be offended (since they like to ride that pony), but of course, nothing's being said about palin's lack of desire to be part of this fine nation.I think they're too busy draping themselves in the flag to bring that up.
sapphiregirl
10-02-2008, 11:38 AM
I don't think Obama is slipping anymore. The USA is starting to look BLUE!
:3dglasses :3dglasses :3dglasses :3dglasses :3dglasses
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
flickad
10-03-2008, 01:07 AM
it hardly matters, obama cracked 50% in recent national polling and his overall numbers have strengthened-- all he has to do is hold steady through this month and he's got the Presidency.
mccain just cannot turn out his base enough to win, not even with a secessionist alaskan pro-life lady on his ticket.
and you can BET you won't be hearing a WORD about a SECESSIONIST'S 'lack of patriotism', compared to, say, the various slings thrown at both of the obamas about how they're not patriotic enough.
i think wanting to secede is pretty unAmerican, and i'd like to think republicans would notice that and be offended (since they like to ride that pony), but of course, nothing's being said about palin's lack of desire to be part of this fine nation.
I thought Lincoln nixed any and all secession aspirations for good way back in the nineteenth century.
Lucy in the Sky
10-04-2008, 02:03 PM
LMAO! He's hardly slipping, Bem401. Obama already has almost all the needed electoral votes to win. Last time I checked he was getting something 250 votes. That's only 20 shy of what's required!
sapphiregirl
10-04-2008, 02:16 PM
LMAO! He's hardly slipping, Bem401. Obama already has almost all the needed electoral votes to win. Last time I checked he was getting something 250 votes. That's only 20 shy of what's required!
Obama is blowing McCain out of the water. This is a cool website to follow.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
bem401
10-04-2008, 02:34 PM
LMAO! He's hardly slipping, Bem401. Obama already has almost all the needed electoral votes to win. Last time I checked he was getting something 250 votes. That's only 20 shy of what's required!
First off, the thread got started 7 weeks ago, hence the title.
Second, nobody "has" a single electoral college vote yet, though I'll admit, for reasons I simply cannot understand, that Obama is the favorite. God help us if he gets in.
sapphiregirl
10-04-2008, 02:57 PM
First off, the thread got started 7 weeks ago, hence the title.
Second, nobody "has" a single electoral college vote yet, though I'll admit, for reasons I simply cannot understand, that Obama is the favorite. God help us if he gets in.
Explain to me what McCain and Palin will do for Americans, the troops, and the environment in detail. Explain to me how they will be different than Bush and the lobbyists running their campaign.
Day after day I see people going off the deep end over Obama supporters but I have yet to see them GIVING POSITIVE AND VALID REASONS TO SUPPORT ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
I see Jester calling me pathetic over and over because I believe in Obama....I see Eric Stoner calling Nancy Pelosi a "dumb bitch".....but none of you come up with POSITIVE SOLUTIONS....you only prove you are nasty narrow minded people.
bem401
10-04-2008, 03:11 PM
Explain to me what McCain and Palin will do for Americans, the troops, and the environment in detail. Explain to me how they will be different than Bush and the lobbyists running their campaign.
Day after day I see people going off the deep end over Obama supporters but I have yet to see them GIVING POSITIVE AND VALID REASONS TO SUPPORT ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
I see Jester calling me pathetic over and over because I believe in Obama....I see Eric Stoner calling Nancy Pelosi a "dumb bitch".....but none of you come up with POSITIVE SOLUTIONS....you only prove you are nasty narrow minded people.
First off, SG, I never said I thought that McCain and Palin were the answers to America's problems.
In my eyes, they have 4 main things going for them:
1. They are not Obama.
2. They will be stronger on national security.
3. They'll appoint better SCJ's.
4. Better on energy.
I have taken a good look at Obama and he strikes me as a cluelese empty suit who has neither the experience nor the savvy for the job. I challenge you to tell me why I am wrong. I cannot think of a single solitary reason why anyone would vote for him.
My vote for McCain is nothing more than a thinly-veiled vote against Obama.
G-Real
10-04-2008, 03:25 PM
double-post
G-Real
10-04-2008, 03:25 PM
First off, SG, I never said I thought that McCain and Palin were the answers to America's problems.
In my eyes, they have 4 main things going for them:
1. They are not Obama.
No they are not, and that is a plus; you have a guy who is going to conitue the same failed administration. And a woman who as VP would try re-writing the constiution.
2. They will be stronger on national security. actually the Department of Homeland Security was a dem. plan from the beginning, dubya signed it into law and took credit for that. Palin does send planes up to meet Russian fighers, the US Gov't does that.
3. They'll appoint better SCJ's. prove me this point? If anything Dems will be more likely to select SCJ that interpret the constitution, not the bible. Also you seem to forget that any SCJ has to pass congress as well
4. Better on energy.
Well I don't see any oil companies lining up to go drill on the contental self as it is now open. Also while alaska has billions of barrels of oil, we go through billions of barrels a day, so its a moot point. Its time to get off of fossil fuels, not only for energy reasons but national security, which republicans seem to have a strong connection to countries in the middle-east.
bem401
10-04-2008, 03:40 PM
^^^^^^
1. Say what you want about failed administrations, it as after all a Dem talking point, but there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11, and that is no small feat.
2. Where is she going to re-write the Constitution?
3. Are you trying to tell me Obama is goping to better provide for my safety?
4. You are right, they won't appoint better justices, they'll nominate better justices, but you know what I meant. As far as legislating from the bench is concerned, that's what the liberal judges do.
5. The energy law recently passed makes it nearly impossible to drill for oil by creating new layers of red tape and forcing the oil compnies to go through the states to get approvals. Getting off fossil fuels is a good idea, but right now, that's what we've got. I know it will take a few years ( not 10 ) to see any oil, but had we gone in a decade ago when Clinton vetoed it, we wouldn't have the energy mess of today.
G-Real
10-04-2008, 04:01 PM
^^^^^^
1. Say what you want about failed administrations, it as after all a Dem talking point, but there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11, and that is no small feat.
2. Where is she going to re-write the Constitution?
3. Are you trying to tell me Obama is goping to better provide for my safety?
4. You are right, they won't appoint better justices, they'll nominate better justices, but you know what I meant. As far as legislating from the bench is concerned, that's what the liberal judges do.
5. The energy law recently passed makes it nearly impossible to drill for oil by creating new layers of red tape and forcing the oil compnies to go through the states to get approvals. Getting off fossil fuels is a good idea, but right now, that's what we've got. I know it will take a few years ( not 10 ) to see any oil, but had we gone in a decade ago when Clinton vetoed it, we wouldn't have the energy mess of today.
*sigh*
1) bem, I will come over right now and for $1,000,000 I will give you a spray that keep lions away. You may say, well G, there are no lions in MA or RI. Which is exactly why my spray works. Your argument holds no water.
Thats like saying, well under Clinton there was a terrorist attack, well there was one under Dubya.
2) During the debate Palin said that she would like to have more legislative power, and that the office of the VP is part of the legislative branch, not the executive.
3) lets use MA and CA judges for the right for Gays/Lesbians to wed. The argument was that is illegal for each state to with-hold that right because there is nothing written in the constitution that defines marriage. Therefore gays and lesbians must have the right to the choice.
really, if you start arguing about this, then we can go back to civil rights, women's rights and start asking judges to take away those rights.
4) Honestly this oil issue is done because of the speculators, not because of lack of oil. The markets expected oil demand to increse 2% this year....Thats right, 2%. yet prices have gone up 100%......you can't tell me there isn't another issue overall at work here.