[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

That's just it. It is at the heart of what I said in the first post.
In discussing such a complex issue the person moderating the debate should not be able to easily dismiss the other side's views and concerns as trivial. He spoke quite at length to justify the "anger" of the black community but only grazed the surface of why the rest of the country feels slighted at having to pander to that anger. (check me out, I can rhyme like Jesse)

Obama's affiliation with Wright is not troubling because of their general association but rather because of the prominent role Obama has given him in his life. Simply because one man is more eloquent and can better present his sermon does not mean that the message is not the same. By ignoring the details of the speech and focusing on the tone you fail to see the implications of the underlying message. There's no talk of an equal partnership and real give and take. What's put forth in the speech amounts to: The rest of America needs shift to accommodate our needs because we're not getting over the problems we have unless you do.

I'm not ignoring the details of the speech at all, I'm just drawing different conclusions from them. There's plenty of talk about an equal partnership, you just fail to see it. His whole point is that, white or black, we all have the same basic rights to equal access to a good education, a good job, safe cities, etc. If you prevent anyone from having this or merely make them feel like they don't have access to this, then you breed resentment no matter the skin color. Also, the give and take is that all sides need to realize that there are valid resentments in each camp, and that we much work to both reduce our own resentments and reduce the reasons for the resentments in others.

I stand by my statement that your reading too much into his speech. I get the feeling that your interjecting a lot of your personal beliefs into your interpretation of his words. Not that it's bad, but what's coming out in this thread seems to be a distortion of what I and many others took away from that speech. But hey, that's the beauty of humans, we all have our different take on things. Discussions like these, and life in general for that matter, would be very boring if it were any other way.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Obama this morning expanding on comments about his grandmother:
"she is a typical white person."
"If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society,"

Even I was a bit surprised by that statement. A typical white person. He's a racist, a repackaged Al Sharpton. The question is, is Obama trying to sabotage his own campaign?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

Good post. Essentially liberation theology at its inception, is Marxism's answer to those pesky Catholics.

Next up, the guy in the front row of the Westboro Baptist Church with some money and Fred Phelps Sr. as a spiritual advisor.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Maybe because he is a new senator, with little political experience? Is that what you were thinking?

Whatever you say there, tiger.

Can't wait to see how you spin Obama's referring to his grandmother as a "typical white person".

I'm sure Obama was merely indicating that she was a typical person who would sometimes wear a white sweater.

[Mithras]

The "Obama hates his grandmother" idea is the silliest thing I've heard in months. To reprise, this is what he said in his speech:

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

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

That's a real "throwing under the bus", all right.

[Ghoser777]

It all depends on what you think Obama meant or was going for when he called his grandmother a "typical white person." I think a lot of people believe he was trying to say that his grandmother was a common example of a racist white person. Obama is solely to blame for his wording that allows for that idea to be created/presented. The other interpretation is, and the one I believe was his true intent, is that Obama was trying to suggest that his grandmother was not just a special case -she had what most people would claim to be a "normal" experience for a white person in America. So her reactions and comments were not bread from some unique experiences, but from experiences that many Americans have shared. He choose poor words to express that idea, and so now he's going to take a lot of flak for that.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

. There's plenty of talk about an equal partnership, you just fail to see it.

I stand by my statement that your reading too much into his speech. I get the feeling that your interjecting a lot of your personal beliefs into your interpretation of his words.

I am reading too much into it?
You are extrapolating and adding things to that speech that just aren't supported by the weight of the text. You are omitting a substantial amount of material that doesn't jibe with what you want to believe it says.

I took a literal interpretation of the speech. I may have dissected it and sorted it into the categories that make it less palatable but I did not add words to it unlike you. Four stanzas on the non-racial causes of the plight of the white middle class and one acknowledging that perceptions of African Americans, not AA themselves, cause white resentment do not balance out five plus pages of Obama justifying why reverse racism on the part of blacks is normal.

You sound like a babyboomer.
Babyboomers seem to love Obama. They project their faded and romanticized memories of John Kennedy and King onto this guy so that as their twilight years approach they don't have to feel like they completely sold out (which boomers did) because the high ideals of their youth are realized in Obama. Unfortunately, apart from being able to mimic their body language and the ability to speak effectively in public Obama has nothing in common with those men.

I know you'd like to believe the speech said what you wanted it to but unless someone took detailed notes or read the transcript of the speech they walked away with an incomplete interpretation of it. It was a 40 minute speech. Even some of the most intelligent people in the world would only be able to recall portions of anything that long if it was dictated to them. You clearly were effected by some parts more than others and now you base your entire opinion of the speech on a few select sections. But as I invited you to do before take a highlighter and go through it so you can compare how balanced the speech really is.

Even in his vague discussion on how to best solve racial inequalities Obama puts the burden of work and sacrifice on non-African American society. I really don't see how that is debatable.

I am saying it again, because Obama spent his adult life in that church and grew his opinions on race relations out of the fodder Rev. Wright preached every Sunday he is not poised to be this magical bridge that crosses the racial divide. So long as blacks' postulate is that the problem's solution lies in the rest of society needing to conform to the desires of African Americans because of our inherent racism then no progress is possible.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

It all depends on what you think Obama meant or was going for when he called his grandmother a "typical white person." I think a lot of people believe he was trying to say that his grandmother was a common example of a racist white person.

The other interpretation is, and the one I believe was his true intent, is that Obama was trying to suggest that his grandmother was not just a special case -she had what most people would claim to be a "normal" experience for a white person in America.

At least he gets the benefit of the doubt that there is a second interpretation.

His comment was at best equally loaded with racist connotations as Ferraro's and no real traction in the media or public outrage came out of it. If anyone had dared made a sweeping generalization about a "typical black person" in this election the entire country would combust over how wrong it was.

[Ghoser777]

I'm noticing lots of "combustion" over the phrase online. I agree that it takes away from his original speech, which is unfortunate because I don't think the meaning being taken is what was intended. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure Ferraro's comments are pretty straightforward (although I'd be willing to hear another side of her story). What's so odd about her comments (that Barack is where he is because he's a black):

1) The same question can be asked of her: was she the VP candidate in 84 because she was a woman?
2) A similar question can be asked of Hillary: is she only where she is because a) she is a woman and b) she was married to a former president?

I was talking to someone about the issue (that Barack is getting a pass because he's black), and they had a different theory on the situation. The question is, what if John Edwards was as great an orator as Barack was - would he be beating Hillary head to head? His assertion (totally debatable) was yes. It's really impossible to know how the dynamics would change.

[Chongo]

desperation or shrewed move?
Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign. There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright’s views.

[Ghoser777]

I don't even see how this is relevant.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

Was (Ferraro) the VP candidate in 84 because she was a woman?

She's addressed this before. She's stated that if she was not a woman, she would not have been selected as a VP running mate.

"In 1984, if my name had been Gerald Ferraro, not Geraldine, I would never have gotten nominated," she said.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

desperation or shrewed move?

Definitely a desperate attempt to deflect.

Rev. Wright was not Clinton's spritual advisor and mentor for 20 years. So what that Wright got some mass mailing from Bill Clinton and appeared in a photo.

This is like another desperate Obama deflection attempt... the release of a photo of Clinton taken with Tony Rezko.

[Ghoser777]

It does serve to slightly question the concept of guilt by association... but Barack knew both Wright and Rezko a lot closer than Clinton, so I think it's a hollow argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I don't even see how this is relevant.

To me it shows that Wright's aspirations have for a long time, been more political than spiritual. It'd make as much sense to have Christopher Hitchens as a spiritual advisor. This is poor, poor judgment on the part of Obama.

I'd also be willing to bet there is more to Wright than we already know. This will prove a deal-breaker for Obama's campaign.

[Ghoser777]

I really hope not - I enjoyed the campaign so much more when we were debating policies, not politics.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I really hope not - I enjoyed the campaign so much more when we were debating policies, not politics.

I don't recall Hillary and Obama really ever debating policies. After all, their policies are essentially the same with the exception of; "I never supported the war". Politics was really the only thing they could debate.

[subego]

^^

Quick Replied for Truth.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't recall Hillary and Obama really ever debating policies. After all, their policies are essentially the same with the exception of; "I never supported the war". Politics was really the only thing they could debate.

Are you saying all Democrats look alike to you?! That just makes you a "typical Republican."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you saying all Democrats look alike to you?! That just makes you a "typical Republican."

I don't know, but you reminded me.

Hey all, I should've been more clear. Obama of course sails to the nomination unless there's silliness. Obama's general bid is toast.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I still don't see this changing anyone's mind. Can anyone here honestly say they would have voted for him in the general before this story but now they won't?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I still don't see this changing anyone's mind. Can anyone here honestly say they would have voted for him in the general before this story but now they won't?

No one in the Pol/War lounge, but the general election is all about a few hundred thousand dingbats I mean "independents" who seem to vote based on whoever gets the more positive media coverage.

[Chongo]

It looks like Obama has weathered the storm

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It looks like Obama has weathered the storm

Read the fine print: among liberals.

His issue is going to be with that 20% that swings between the two parties. Not only will his adopted racial views haunt him but he is not even a moderate democrat. Obama's political views lean pretty far to the left as where McCain is much more in the center.

[Uncle Skeleton]

How can you call them "his adopted racial views" when he denounced those views?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Read the fine print: among liberals.

His issue is going to be with that 20% that swings between the two parties. Not only will his adopted racial views haunt him but he is not even a moderate democrat.

He is pretty moderate. Calling them "adopted racial views" just shows that you aren't moderate. I think this will blow over quickly. The general election is still almost eight months away. It should pick up substance when the debates are between Democrat and Republican instead of Democrat versus Democrat. Obviously the people talking about "riots" today are never going to vote for a black person, but I think those people are Republicans anyway, not part of the swing 20%. The vast majority of the country isn't scared of black people.

[Arty50]

I really should just let it go...but...

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I am reading too much into it?
You are extrapolating and adding things to that speech that just aren't supported by the weight of the text.

Yes, you are reading too much into it. Look, I'm not someone who just dismisses arguments without giving them their just due. I both read the speech and watched it again after reading your interpretation while keeping an eye out for what you saw in it. In other words, I reviewed it again objectively, removed my initial take on it from my thoughts and went at it again. You're interpretation just doesn't jive with the speech. In fact, the vast majority of people I've talked to about the speech agree with what I took away from it. I even presented one of your primary arguments to a few friends today (who range from moderately liberal to very conservative) and they thought it was ridiculous. No one I know took his speech to mean that blacks deserve to be angry and so whites just need to deal with it (and no, I didn't present it that simply). So who's really reading meaning into it then? Perhaps the person whose opinion doesn't jibe with what most people took away from it?

Secondly, I'd like to point out that it's a speech not an essay. Analyzing it like the latter can change it's meaning. And once again you're counting words. Are you serious? This isn't grammar school English class. I know that's a bit blunt, but let's get real.

You sound like a babyboomer.

You're funny. Actually, my support for Obama has little to do with his oratory and a lot to do with his stance on a handful of issues. His oratory is an added bonus.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How can you call them "his adopted racial views" when he denounced those views?

Doesn't he kind of have to? I mean, if he really wants to be President? They are his adopted racial views in that he's given the benefit of over 20 years membership to a Church that espouses as the core of its doctrine, these racial views. I know, shocker... a politician who panders to both sides of an issue for a vote.

I wonder how far McCain would've gotten with membership at the Westboro Baptist Church.
"Of course I don't hate gays, but Fred Phelps introduced me to Jesus. That crazy Fred Phelps sure is vocal."

Obama is silly, delusional, and unelectable.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No one in the Pol/War lounge, but the general election is all about a few hundred thousand dingbats I mean "independents" who seem to vote based on whoever gets the more positive media coverage.

Of course, as opposed to the dyed in the wool left that would vote for Obama regardless of any information that might make the otherwise sane think twice.

[Ghoser777]

Of course, as opposed to the dyed in the wool right that would vote for McCain regardless of any information that might make the otherwise sane think twice.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

He is pretty moderate.

Only in comparison to a communist. He has the most liberal voting record of all Senators.

[Ghoser777]

I thought he was the 10th most liberal, tied with Joe Biden?

Media Matters - Buchanan simply asserted Obama has "most liberal voting record in the United States Senate"

Anyway... (and preemptively granting the point already made that the primary has been mostly about politics) can't wait to get down to policies instead of who's more liberal/moderate/conservative. We're going to talk about policies at some point... right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

a Church that espouses as the core of its doctrine, these racial views.

I must have missed that part. Can you elaborate? What makes this the core of its doctrine?

I wonder how far McCain would've gotten with membership at the Westboro Baptist Church.
"Of course I don't hate gays, but Fred Phelps introduced me to Jesus. That crazy Fred Phelps sure is vocal."

I didn't see anywhere that Wright preaches hate for whites, if that's what you're implying. The videos I saw, which I assume must be the most incriminating given the messenger(s), focused on blacks, not whites. They focused on the experiences blacks live with, and on how they deserve better than they get, and that they should be proud not ashamed. Being proud of your community is a message you'd expect to find in any church anywhere. "Pro-black" is not the same as "anti-white," and it's not analogous to "anti-gay," not any more than "pro-gay" would be equivalent to "anti-straight." They're just different. If Wright ever advocated going out and finding whites and assaulting them, then it would be analogous. I didn't see that, but please point me to it if I missed it.

Also, ebuddy, has your pastor ever said anything you personally disagree with? Do you forgive him for it? Are there any members of your church that are *gasp* Democrats? Do you forgive them for it? If so, don't you think it would be a little ridiculous if anyone accused you of holding those views due to guilt by association?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course, as opposed to the dyed in the wool left that would vote for Obama regardless of any information that might make the otherwise sane think twice.

Is there any worthwhile point here that should be addressed, or is it just the usual ebuddy hyper-partisan nonsense that deserves only to be ridiculed?

[BRussell]

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Obama is toast:


And no, Obama is not and will not be framed as the "angry black man" of people's nightmares.

That is funny. Did you do that?

[Chongo]

The Nominee of the super delegate mini convention

[OldManMac]

Here's one of the real issues of this campaign, and of the direction this country is heading in.

STLtoday - Obama tests America's cult of ignorance

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is there any worthwhile point here that should be addressed, or is it just the usual ebuddy hyper-partisan nonsense that deserves only to be ridiculed?

I'm glad you asked. My point was in response to you chest-pounding your partisanship;

Originally Posted by BRussell

No one in the Pol/War lounge, but the general election is all about a few hundred thousand dingbats I mean "independents" who seem to vote based on whoever gets the more positive media coverage.

Using your logic, it's too dangerous in the middle of the road. Must be either on the left or right side. You've obviously chosen the left, but for whatever reason that's not good enough for you. It's those dingbats who haven't pledged allegiance to a party that wait on media coverage. The worthwhile point is that you're a partisan hack who doesn't like to be called to the carpet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

Of course, as opposed to the dyed in the wool right that would vote for McCain regardless of any information that might make the otherwise sane think twice.

That could be so, but then I've already stated several times that I'm pretty resolved on NOT voting this cycle. Of course, you weren't talking about me anyway. That'd kind of make your generalizations a little... well, ig'nant.

At least at the surface, conservatives appear to be holding McCain's feet to the fire a little more than the libs are holding Obama's.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I must have missed that part. Can you elaborate? What makes this the core of its doctrine?

Liberation Theology?

Trinity Church site
go to the bottom of the link on their website; United Church of Christ Statement of Faith in the form of a doxology, read Wrights new version of "talking points" in which he sites the names of those at the forefront of the movement to which this Church adheres.
Who are the folks Wright is talking about;
Black theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the book, Cone asserted that not only was black power not alien to the Gospel, it was, in fact, the Gospel message for all of 20th century America."

The rhetoric of the movement and of Wright himself, do not seek to unite, but divide. They do not seek to elevate the black experience to equality, but superiority. It is at the core of the faith. You will not find "savior" in the 10 point vision of this "Christian" church. You will not find "Jesus" in this 10-point vision. You will not even find "Christ" in this 10-point vision. What you will find is a failure to acknowledge all aspects of the history of the slave trade. After all, that may implicate "rich blacks" as well. In the sermons you may hear something to the effect of; "Hillary wouldn't understand because she's never been called a n*****." It is entirely founded upon nothing more than race, indicts "rich whites" as the source of all evil up to and including the notion that "rich whites" invented HIV to eradicate blacks.

IMO, It has little place at the pulpit, but to each their own. It certainly has no place on Pennsylvania Ave.

I didn't see anywhere that Wright preaches hate for whites, if that's what you're implying. The videos I saw, which I assume must be the most incriminating given the messenger(s), focused on blacks, not whites. They focused on the experiences blacks live with, and on how they deserve better than they get, and that they should be proud not ashamed. Being proud of your community is a message you'd expect to find in any church anywhere. "Pro-black" is not the same as "anti-white," and it's not analogous to "anti-gay," not any more than "pro-gay" would be equivalent to "anti-straight." They're just different. If Wright ever advocated going out and finding whites and assaulting them, then it would be analogous. I didn't see that, but please point me to it if I missed it.

If you're looking for statements from Wright preaching actual violence against whites, I'm afraid I don't have anything for you right now. If this is your criteria, we've reached an impasse.

Also, ebuddy, has your pastor ever said anything you personally disagree with? Do you forgive him for it? Are there any members of your church that are *gasp* Democrats? Do you forgive them for it? If so, don't you think it would be a little ridiculous if anyone accused you of holding those views due to guilt by association?

Politics are not mentioned in Church. It is a violation that could wind up hurting the tax-exempt status of Churches everywhere. Not to mention the fact that it's just tacky. There certainly may be Democrats in my church and they don't require forgiveness any more or less than I. My Church teaches the doctrine of Faith as written in the Scriptures and there is little to disagree with. There may be a conversation from some about the evils of books like Harry Potter and I may temper their fears by reminding them of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but other than that, it is Scripturally centered and generally very agreeable as it relates to God and to Jesus. It does not twist Scripture into a political movement, shmooze politicians, and rail against rich (enter skin color here) people. If it did, I would kindly dust off my sandals and seek worship elsewhere. Funny thing is, I'm not even running for office.

Obama is dishonest, silly, delusional, and unelectable. His membership in this church should be regarded no differently than membership at Phelp's "I hate fags" assembly.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you will find is a failure to acknowledge all aspects of the history of the slave trade. After all, that may implicate "rich blacks" as well.

That's the big secret the reparations crowd doest want to get out. You will surprised how few people know how the slave traders acquired the slaves they sold. One tribe would capture another and sell them into slavery.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, It has little place at the pulpit, but to each their own. It certainly has no place on Pennsylvania Ave.

Obama is dishonest, silly, delusional, and unelectable. His membership in this church should be regarded no differently than membership at Phelp's "I hate fags" assembly.

I have completely different political views than those of my pastor. What does that say about me? That I'm tolerant of other views? I'm not sure that I can think any less of Obama for this until someone can show that these are actually his views and not just the views of someone else. I don't really care what someone's pastor, husband, wife, sister, brother, child, etc say. Everybody has views that are questionable to others in some way. I actually like the fact that Obama isn't flat out condemning the man. I'm tired of this polarizing black and white crap about someone needing to be cast out the moment they say something that people find inappropriate. Do we not all make mistakes? Even if we're in the midst of an ongoing mistake and don't even recognize it, should we simply be cast aside and trampled under the herd mentality of silencing those with whom we disagree?

It's pathetic that this is an issue. Until Obama himself shows some sign of believing or espousing these things, this should be a non-issue. Unless, of course, you somehow think everyone must follow lock step behind the thoughts of all of their associates. If you do think that way, I'm very concerned for your world in which people can't think for themselves.

[Big Mac]

[dp...]

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I have completely different political views than those of my pastor. What does that say about me? That I'm tolerant of other views?

Are your pastor's political viewpoints synonymous with racial and religious hatred? Anti-Americanism? Because they are in Obama's case. Political differences are one thing. What we're talking about here is something very different and you know it. And by being a member of a particular house of worship for 20 years, one is giving undeniable approbation to the views articulated there. If Obama strongly disapproved of such views he would have chosen a different church. The amount of spin in this thread is disturbing, but perhaps I just have not yet gotten fully accustomed to that tactics of the left.

[zerostar]

Hey now don't blame all "the left", I (as someone you would say is on the "left") think his association with this man and their 20 year relationship is telling and Obama has no excuse not knowing his views. I guess I think he did partly the right thing if you listen to what he said. He needs to publicly denounce the pastors views on the issues, but even now would be too late.

I REALLY don't think this has hurt him much in the long run, I think every sermon is out there and most are very plain jane (I have listened to many and tried to order a full set but cant now) Unless something new comes out this will probably fade away. Not that I care... I wish Obama would fade away but I don't think that will happen

[Big Mac]

You're not the left I'm referring to, then, zerostar. You're not deluded or in willful denial on this issue. Perhaps I should say the deluded left.

I think it will have a long term psychological effect, especially on the independent vote, but I also think it is just the beginning of Obama's credibility problems. He has shown that despite his finely crafted image he is very much susceptible to attack.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are your pastor's political viewpoints synonymous with racial and religious hatred? Anti-Americanism? Because they are in Obama's case. Political differences are one thing. What we're talking about here is something very different and you know it. And by being a member of a particular house of worship for 20 years, one is giving undeniable approbation to the views articulated there. If Obama strongly disapproved of such views he would have chosen a different church. The amount of spin in this thread is disturbing, but perhaps I just have not yet gotten fully accustomed to that tactics of the left.

I've been in the same church with the same pastor for 19 years. It's not quite 20, but let's call it close enough. I'm a pacifist. I don't see how you can interpret the teachings of Jesus in any other way. My pastor waffles on the issue - while he doesn't agree with me, he doesn't disagree with me. The church recognizes veterans and "war heros", but I still attend. I think war is murder and that we are organizing to collectively violate the teachings of Christ by going to war. I believe that Augustine's doctrine of just war was a politically motivated rationalization. Did I stop going to the church? No. Do I agree with the implicit tolerance of war and the explicit celebration of it? No. I can agree with much of what my pastor teaches, but I don't imagine that I'll find a place that I'm 100% in agreement with.

How is my situation significantly different than that of Obama's? It's not, so I can't really hold it against him that his pastor has views that he thinks are wrong.

[wallinbl]

Here:
Denouncing and Renouncing - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad you asked. My point was in response to you chest-pounding your partisanship;

Using your logic, it's too dangerous in the middle of the road. Must be either on the left or right side. You've obviously chosen the left, but for whatever reason that's not good enough for you. It's those dingbats who haven't pledged allegiance to a party that wait on media coverage.

That's a willful misreading of my post. A third of the US population are independents. Now look what I said: "a few hundred thousand dingbats I mean "independents" who seem to vote based on whoever gets the more positive media coverage." A few hundred thousand /= the tens of millions who are independents. Dingbats who seem to vote based on whoever gets the more positive media coverage /= all independents in the US. The category of dingbats I was referring to are much smaller than the category of all independents in the US. I was specifically referring to unsophisticated voters who base their knowledge of politics on the ups and downs of the media-created trivia of mini-scandals rather than substantive policy differences, and it was a very specific answer to Uncle Skeleton's question about who would change their vote. If you disagree with my point, go ahead and address it rather than trying to sidetrack the discussion into your typical ultra-partisan and pointless left-bashing. Obviously there are plenty of people on both sides who will vote for their party no matter what, but how does that address the point I made? How does that contribute anything to this discussion about Obama? It doesn't.

The worthwhile point is that you're a partisan hack who doesn't like to be called to the carpet.

And that really says it all. A "worthwhile point" to you is apparently a childish insult that contributes nothing of substance to the discussion, along with a gratuitous rolleyes.