[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It's not minor if a whole heck of a lot of people care about it. I doubt Obama would have given that speech today if he deemed this "minor". Upper echelons of his campaign staff are working their tails off trying to stem the bleeding. Does this sound like an "extremely minor issue" to you?

Yes. The amount of fuss the media makes over something doesn't actually make it any more or less significant. If we were to use that metric, Britney Spears and the iPhone would be more important than any other issues in this election.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

To classify this issue as "extremely minor", and to then accuse those who take issue with it as having a "predisposition to hate Obama"... it's pretty obvious where you lean. Why don't you come clean and simply say you are an Obama supporter instead of unsuccessfully portraying yourself as being objective?

I've been pretty open about my position throughout the elections. I didn't particularly like any of the choices I had, but I was backing Romney. He was the closest thing to a libertarian that had a chance in hell. Then he flaked out and left McCain as the Republican nominee. I really don't like McCain, and I don't trust him to do anything I'd consider conservative or libertarian.

So looking at the Democrats, I know that I disagree with both of them on a lot of stuff and either one will probably piss me off a lot if elected. But in spite of having a very different philosophy from my own, Obama seems like a fairly sensible guy, and I do find that intriguing.

I supported Nader years ago, but I think he's kind of an ass for trying to shoehorn himself into this race so late.

So no, I really don't know how I'm going to vote in November.

If you'd like to ask me any questions about where I stand, feel free to ask them — as questions. Taking an exaggeratedly strong stance like telling me I'm "an Obama supporter … unsuccessfully portraying [myself] as being objective" makes you sound dogmatic and irrational.

[subego]

Here is the Obama autobiography quote IN CONTEXT.


"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

The high could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bull**** and cheap moralism.

That's how it had seemed to me then, anyway. At the start of my senior year in high school, my mother marched into my room. My friend Pablo had been arrested.

I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.

People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a wellmannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.

Except my mother hadn't looked satisfied. She had just sat there, studying my eyes, her face as grim as a hearse."


Barack Obama: How I am still haunted by my father | the Daily Mail

It's just past the picture of Obama as a kid playing baseball.

I was expecting it not to end up meaning what it seemed to mean taken out of context, but this just blows my ****ing mind.

[Chuckit]

Wow, neither I nor spacefreak was even close on the context. Goes to show you the importance.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Al Qaeda attacks America and the West because the western world represents an affront to Islam and its quest for global domination - the imposition of Sharia throughout the world.

You mean to tell me that Al Qaeda couldn't care less about Palestinians?

Rev. Wright's oratory makes him a caricature - he does that all by himself.

Worse. Please. Where I'm from, Wright would've been chastized for being so light-skinned. We've got blowhards like that here locally. These folks perpetuate racism for a buck and they frequently use the pulpit to do it. Now, he's ruined the only shot a black man has had at the Presidency in a very long time. With what you ask? Racism. Talk about coming home to roost.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, Obama may have been slightly inconsistent about an extremely minor issue? I guess that means he's…oh yeah, still better than either of our last two presidents.

Yet it is this very sentiment that essentially laughed Ron Paul out of the running. Our goals should be a little higher than; "well, he's better than Bush or Clinton". Slight inconsistency about (in your opinion) minor issues is not change. It's more of the same BS.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is worth discussing unless you're just predisposed to hate Obama.

Uh-oh. Hate is kind of a strong word isn't it? I actually liked Obama. Seriously. Enough to vote for him? Absolutely not. We simply align nowhere politically. He is an extremely likable guy however. I regard him now as I regard anyone having attended the "I hate fags" church. Silly, delusional, and unelectable. At least the folks from the "I hate fags" church have enough sense not to run for the presidency.

As somebody who still doesn't know what he wants to do in November, this doesn't really sway my opinion in any direction.

As someone who has decided not to vote in November at all, I'm not swayed either. Not yet.

[Taliesin]

According to the black liberation theology, God or Jesus manifests himself in the poor and oppressed of all times, and therefore for the times of slavery and segregation Jesus is black.

It is similar and connected to the liberation theology that was so popular in Southamerica which was directed against capitalism.

In black liberation theology all this came together, the fight against the whites and against capitalism, as both were identified as the main oppressors...

This is also based on the verses that are attributed to Jesus as saying:

The "full" quote, according to the NASB translation of the Bible, reads (Jesus speaking):

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

The Lukan parallels (12:49–53,14:25–33) read:

NASB
" 49 I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

KJV
"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)

Verse comparison
NASB
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

And in Luke 22:35-38

"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NASB)

Source: But to bring a sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So they use these verses as portraying a more active even violent Jesus whose passion is aimed at liberating the oppressed... ie. a Jesus that isn't only the redeemer but also the liberator.

Within that theology and worldview, the US-establishment, government and elites represent an oppressive regime that needs to be destroyed, or changed.

Taliesin

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes. The amount of fuss the media makes over something doesn't actually make it any more or less significant. If we were to use that metric, Britney Spears and the iPhone would be more important than any other issues in this election.

Sadly, that's actually true. Britney Spears is a heluvalot more important than a presidential candidate to a very large chunk of the population.

[Big Mac]

I'm trying to decide whether yesterday's speech by Obama was a badly calculated move or a shrewed attempt to increase pressure on white independents to vote for him based on white guilt.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

ABC News: Obama in Cross Hairs for Pastor Remarks
ABC News: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11

With the spotlight on Obama's pastor, and his fiery rhetoric, is his campaign over? I think not.

I think not also, particularly after his brilliant speech in which, jettisoning politics as usual, he does not simply distance himself from his former pastor, but offers a complex and nuanced exploration of the history and ideas at work in this dialogue over race.

Conventional political theorists would say this is too subtle, too intellectual for the general public--but those voices have been wrong over and over again about Obama.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm trying to decide whether yesterday's speech by Obama was a badly calculated move or a shrewed attempt to increase pressure on white independents to vote for him based on white guilt.

Or how about an honest and insightful look at the difficult legacy of racism in this nation--exactly the sort of inspired introspection this nation needs as it regroups for the 21st century.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Or how about an honest and insightful look at the difficult legacy of racism in this nation--exactly the sort of inspired introspection this nation needs as it regroups for the 21st century.

I see you're really good at swallowing tripe. He was caught in an outright lie, used racial politics to attempt to evade the scrutiny, and the morons eat it up. Amazing.

[Eug]

CBS Poll: Pastor's Remarks Hurt Obama, While Most Are Unaffected By Controversy, A Third Of Those Who Have Heard About It View Obama Less Favorably - CBS News

Overall, unfavorable views of Obama are up somewhat from February. His favorable ratings remain largely unchanged at 44 percent, but there has been some movement from undecided views to unfavorable views, from 23 percent in February to 30 percent now.

Among Democratic primary voters, unfavorable views have doubled, but favorable views remain dominant: more than six in ten Democratic primary voters are positive.


CBS Poll: Gender Matters More Than Race, Voters Say Woman Candidate Faces Slightly Bigger Barriers To Presidency Than A Black Candidate - CBS News

Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll. Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.

When it comes to the 2008 presidential election, voters say Hillary Clinton has been judged more harshly because of her gender than Barack Obama has because of his race. Forty two percent said Clinton has been judged “more harshly” and six percent said she has been judged less harshly because of her gender. Twenty seven percent said they think Obama has been judged “more harshly” because of his race while 11 percent said he has been judged less harshly.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes. The amount of fuss the media makes over something doesn't actually make it any more or less significant.

If anything, the media has been burying this story for a long time. The only reason they are all on board in terms of coverage is because they are trying to save face. This information has been widely available for 5-7 years. Why did it take so long for it to hit the mainstream media?

If we were to use that metric, Britney Spears and the iPhone would be more important than any other issues in this election.

Totally different industries, yet all are products that were marketed to us. The media is just a tool. and they essentially took Obama's marketing message and promoted it as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If you'd like to ask me any questions about where I stand, feel free to ask them — as questions. Taking an exaggeratedly strong stance like telling me I'm "an Obama supporter … unsuccessfully portraying [myself] as being objective" makes you sound dogmatic and irrational.

I totally agree with you.

Your response as I read it was very similar to that of an Obama supporter... "it's no big deal... stop talking about it... you're just predisposed to hate Obama".

I'd bet that 70% of comments just like that which are being written today (and yesterday) on sites around the web are by Obama supporters. So I don't dismiss the possibility that I could be wrong. However, I don't see how you can be a Romney supporter who claims to veer conservative-libertarian, and yet claim to be undecided about Obama (or Hillary) in the general election.

In this situation, I'd be willing to bet that over 90% of conservatives and libertarians are clearly opposed to Obama or Hillary in the Oval office. I'd also bet that 30-40% are opposed to McCain.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, neither I nor spacefreak was even close on the context.

Speak for yourself.

He's using a developed, effective "tactic" and "trick" to conceal truth, and he clearly describes this tactic's purpose as being designed for use on a certain race.

Consider this statement, and tell me that if it came from my mouth that you wouldn't derive the same thing...

"The black man asked me what had I been doing. I responded by using an effective tactic, a trick that I developed to conceal things from blacks. Most of the time, it satisfied them. This time it didn't."

[Chongo]

Ok, now Obama is going to have the troops rally to him
YouTube - Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"
YouTube - Obama is a Good House Negro

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ok, now Obama is going to have the troops rally to him
YouTube - Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"
YouTube - Obama is a Good House Negro

Unless that preacher is the spiritual advisor and beneficiary of a 20-year relationship with Hillary Clinton or John McCain, this isn't anywhere near an effective rebuttal.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I see you're really good at swallowing tripe. He was caught in an outright lie, used racial politics to attempt to evade the scrutiny, and the morons eat it up. Amazing.

Did you watch/read the speech? It was not evasive.

Obama doesn't serve tripe like every other cynical and corrupt politician out there. Maybe you've just had so much you can't taste the difference anymore. It's certainly understandable, but take heart, the menu is "change"-ing.