Disturbing Article about Obama and his minister

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: scott
(I didn't slog through the whole threaqd)

So who probably surfaced this dirt, hoping it sticks on Obama . . .slime-dripping stinking Hillary or the Republicans?

According to Politico it was the Hillary camp pushing this angle.

Link? or cut and paste where it says that?

Obama's campaign has been accused of finding the G. Ferraro statement in some local paper and pushed it nationwide. AFAIK I haven't seen anyone given credit for publicizing the pastor videos, although if it were a Clinton surrogate I'd hardly be surprised. But this is both campaigns playing the same game. Does that make Obama's people slime-dripping or are they just speaking truth? Nice double standard.

Since the vids surfaced the Clinton campaign has been Very Mum about it and I haven't seen them make one comment other than "a candidate cannot be responsible for what all his/her supporters say." I'd hardly call that jumping on the crucifiction bandwagon.

The story was and always has been pushed by Sean Hannity on his radio show and on his FOX news tv show.

Because Hannity is the peak of sanity and anything he has to say about a (D) front-running candidate is to be looked at as purely non-partisan. :roll:

Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

Unless you can point to some example that Obama is using poor/unfair judgment as a result of this 'relationship', I really don't see what the issue is. I am not afraid to rip any politician to shreds when there are valid reasons to, you should hear me go on about LBJ, Clinton, Bush, etc, but as of yet, I don't see much of Obama's history that warrants concern. He's sort of a blank page at this point. Pretty much all politicians earn my ire, so I fully expect him to follow suit, but you can bet it won't have anything to do with trifle such as this.

Hannity is a hack. Listening to him on a (D) candidate is about as relevant and useful as listening to Olbermann on a (R) candidate. If you want honest assessment, look towards independents.

Example #1: Obama is, "sort of a blank page at this point". These are words you just typed a few minutes ago. With limited time spent in the Senate, we can't say that we know that much about Obama and how he is going to run this country. What we do know is that the title of a book he wrote was inspired by a preacher that has been an integral part of his religous life. Given that we don't know much about Obama, and that he has now been linked (by his own admission) to a radical, racist group, we can assume he shares some of those viewpoints. You CAN NOT be a premier member of church like he was and claim to not know the politcal philosophy, especially when people like Farrakahn are given Lifetime achievement awards.

Obama is playing both sides of the table, acting like a unitor to garner a broad spectrum of votes, while dealing with underhanded racists that have a HUGE chip on their shoulders. If that is something that does not concern you then thats OK, but in a general election Obama is going to get CREAMED.

Hillary is the safe choice for the Democratic party and I fully support any move to give her the necessary votes to gain the nomination. This is a story that will not go away, and trust me more stuff will come out about this "special" relationship.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: scott
(I didn't slog through the whole threaqd)

So who probably surfaced this dirt, hoping it sticks on Obama . . .slime-dripping stinking Hillary or the Republicans?

According to Politico it was the Hillary camp pushing this angle.

Link? or cut and paste where it says that?

Obama's campaign has been accused of finding the G. Ferraro statement in some local paper and pushed it nationwide. AFAIK I haven't seen anyone given credit for publicizing the pastor videos, although if it were a Clinton surrogate I'd hardly be surprised. But this is both campaigns playing the same game. Does that make Obama's people slime-dripping or are they just speaking truth? Nice double standard.

Since the vids surfaced the Clinton campaign has been Very Mum about it and I haven't seen them make one comment other than "a candidate cannot be responsible for what all his/her supporters say." I'd hardly call that jumping on the crucifiction bandwagon.

The story was and always has been pushed by Sean Hannity on his radio show and on his FOX news tv show.

Because Hannity is the peak of sanity and anything he has to say about a (D) front-running candidate is to be looked at as purely non-partisan. :roll:

Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

Unless you can point to some example that Obama is using poor/unfair judgment as a result of this 'relationship', I really don't see what the issue is. I am not afraid to rip any politician to shreds when there are valid reasons to, you should hear me go on about LBJ, Clinton, Bush, etc, but as of yet, I don't see much of Obama's history that warrants concern. He's sort of a blank page at this point. Pretty much all politicians earn my ire, so I fully expect him to follow suit, but you can bet it won't have anything to do with trifle such as this.

Hannity is a hack. Listening to him on a (D) candidate is about as relevant and useful as listening to Olbermann on a (R) candidate. If you want honest assessment, look towards independents.

Example #1: Obama is, "sort of a blank page at this point". These are words you just typed a few minutes ago. With limited time spent in the Senate, we can't say that we know that much about Obama and how he is going to run this country. What we do know is that the title of a book he wrote was inspired by a preacher that has been an integral part of his religous life. Given that we don't know much about Obama, and that he has now been linked (by his own admission) to a radical, racist group, we can assume he shares some of those viewpoints. You CAN NOT be a premier member of church like he was and claim to not know the politcal philosophy, especially when people like Farrakahn are given Lifetime achievement awards.

Obama is playing both sides of the table, acting like a unitor to garner a broad spectrum of votes, while dealing with underhanded racists that have a HUGE chip on their shoulders. If that is something that does not concern you then thats OK, but in a general election Obama is going to get CREAMED.

Hillary is the safe choice for the Democratic party and I fully support any move to give her the necessary votes to gain the nomination. This is a story that will not go away, and trust me more stuff will come out about this "special" relationship.

Do you know what the word "racist" means? Do you know or understand the definition?

 

[Moonbeam]

I am voting for Obama because his spiritual leader is Jesus. Moses or Mohammad would have been OK too.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am voting for Obama because his spiritual leader is Jesus. Moses or Mohammad would have been OK too.

:laugh:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Your motive is clear so I'm not saying anything that's not already known.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've already responded and I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

 

[NeoV]

a few thoughts

Months ago - the angle being pushed at Obama was that he was 'too muslim', or that he was secretly still a muslim, or that he went to hate-teaching muslim schools......so as Obama's team stresses that he's been a practicing Christian, now we get attacks on his pastor - a former US Marine, who, outside of some inflammitory speeches - which by the way aren't entirely inaccurate - has had a long and distinguished career . I'll agree completely that some of this guy's stances, like the "aids was created by the white man" stuff, are complete BS - and Obama probably should have distanced himself from this guy sooner - but how often do we think Obama even sees this guy in the past 5-6 years? I think the Obama camp wanted to distance itself from the 'muslim' attacks, and is now having to backtrack a bit on their ties with this guy - to be honest I'm not sure the whole thing is worth much.

Interesting side note - the new pastor at that church was a very good friend of mine growing up, even a teammate on my HS football teams.

As for you saying "i've never been to a catholic church where politics were mentioned" - stop kidding yourself - abortion, abstinence, etc - never brought up? As a former altar boy and long time church goer, stop kidding yourself. Names may not have been mentioned, but political topics surely have been.

 

[Genx87]

Only in a prayer. I have never seen a catholic priest go on and on about anything political.

Now it is surely possible there is one out there. But in the thousands of masses across many states I have attended it has never happened.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: scott
(I didn't slog through the whole threaqd)

So who probably surfaced this dirt, hoping it sticks on Obama . . .slime-dripping stinking Hillary or the Republicans?

According to Politico it was the Hillary camp pushing this angle.

Link? or cut and paste where it says that?

Obama's campaign has been accused of finding the G. Ferraro statement in some local paper and pushed it nationwide. AFAIK I haven't seen anyone given credit for publicizing the pastor videos, although if it were a Clinton surrogate I'd hardly be surprised. But this is both campaigns playing the same game. Does that make Obama's people slime-dripping or are they just speaking truth? Nice double standard.

Since the vids surfaced the Clinton campaign has been Very Mum about it and I haven't seen them make one comment other than "a candidate cannot be responsible for what all his/her supporters say." I'd hardly call that jumping on the crucifiction bandwagon.

The story was and always has been pushed by Sean Hannity on his radio show and on his FOX news tv show.

Yes, Hannity has been pushing it for a long time. In fact we've had threads about this church in the past. What was primarily discussed here and by Hannity was the church's black-centric mission statement or pledge (whatever they call it).

But this thing got much bigger when the video's were released. Where they came and who released would be interesting to know. But I think both the Repubs and the Hillary camp have interest in seeing them released. Hillary for obvious reasons, and the Repubs would rather NOT run against Obama.

Saw some new Rasmussen polls last night, the expected result of this sort of thing appears to happened, now both Dem candidates have been pulled down and are polling behind McCain in head-to-head matchups. Hillary significantly so.

Ron Paul's 911 position? Yes, the Rev Wright says basically the same thing but somehow it inspires outrage. I think whoever made this "highlights" DVD of Rev Wright have done a clever job of mixing in some fairly mainstream views/positions with the nuttier ones and came up wth a larger explosive cocktail.

Sigh. I see Mark Penn is now on the go and accussing the Obama campaign of going "negative" towards Hillary? I think Obama has had his hands full and is on the defensive. How Penn can claim this IDK. I fear it an indication that the HRC campaign is about to go on the offensive while Obama is occupied with this stuff.

It's like the guy is battling two opponents at once, HRC and the Repubs.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Don't tell me Obama is somehow accountable because he has as a teacher one of the three pillars of monotheism, Edited by AT Moderator

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Only in a prayer. I have never seen a catholic priest go on and on about anything political.

Now it is surely possible there is one out there. But in the thousands of masses across many states I have attended it has never happened.

And never about social issues?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Don't tell me Obama is somehow accountable because he has as a teacher one of the three pillars of monotheism, you atheist son of a bitch.

Yeah, people like Bin Ladin and al-Sadr also has a teacher from one of the three pillars of Monotheism, guess that makes them good people too. And I guess you wouldn't have problem with someone listening to Bin Ladin or al-Sadr's sermons for 20 years to run for POTUS? Not saying Obama is one of those Muslim extremist, just wanna point out that not all people who believes in God are the same.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fern

The guy is battling two opponents at once, HRC and the Repubs.

Fern

Fixed and no doubting it's true.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Your motive is clear so I'm not saying anything that's not already known.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've already responded and I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Your motive is clear also, attack the mesenger.

The question is what are Obama's motives? How can he make the claim to be a uniter when his motives are unclear? Indeed his whole political career has revolved around catering to the black vote, now he wants to represent the whole country.

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Yeah, people like Bin Ladin and al-Sadr also has a teacher from one of the three pillars of Monotheism, guess that makes them good people too. And I guess you wouldn't have problem with someone listening to Bin Ladin or al-Sadr's sermons for 20 years to run for POTUS? Not saying Obama is one of those Muslim extremist, just wanna point out that not all people who believes in God are the same.

I would also like to point out that...

Just because Hannity/right-wing radio listeners or other religious fanatic followers are unable to discern between bullshit and caviar doesn't mean that the rest of the population has that same issue.

My impression and opinion is that Obama took the spiritual caviar from the pastor and discarded the inflamatory bullshit.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Your motive is clear so I'm not saying anything that's not already known.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've already responded and I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Your motive is clear also, attack the mesenger.

The question is what are Obama's motives? How can he make the claim to be a uniter when his motives are unclear? Indeed his whole political career has revolved around catering to the black vote, now he wants to represent the whole country.

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

Aside from this, he running as a "different kind of politician" with so called "integrity. He blew those positions when he asked us to believe that he was unaware of the Reverend Wright's preachings. You'd have to be a damn fool to believe that. If he had integrity, he would have found some way to say he was aware and control the damage from there.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...Edited by AT Moderator.

Haha, CLASSY! /sarcasm

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87
Only in a prayer. I have never seen a catholic priest go on and on about anything political.

Now it is surely possible there is one out there. But in the thousands of masses across many states I have attended it has never happened.

And never about social issues?

Like?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

And Bush claimed to be a uniter. Why didn't he belong to or attend black churches? Why hasn't Hillary who has also claimed that she would bring the country together?

What about McCain? I'm sure that somewhere along the line he has made the same claim?

You are way to smart 1EZ to be using this line of reasoning. You are making it blatantly obvious that you do not want Obama to win and this has been the first thing (and surprisingly one of the weakest "issues) that has seemed to gain any real traction.

 

[1EZduzit]

Here's a good one.

Obama's church used to have a link on their home page to their black values mission satement, but they have removed it since I was last there (several months ago??). I guess with all this attention they don't want us gullible white folk to see what they are really promoting.

http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

There used to be a direct link on the home page, I know because I used it but it's gone now. The page is still there but how would one find it if he didn't know about it?

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Oh yeah, I'm going to blindly trust this guy and his values because he talks so pretty.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Your motive is clear also, attack the mesenger.

The question is what are Obama's motives? How can he make the claim to be a uniter when his motives are unclear? Indeed his whole political career has revolved around catering to the black vote, now he wants to represent the whole country.

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

What? When did I attack the messenger? I'm attacking the message and the repeating of the same questions over and over. FFS this thread is near 300 posts and nothing has changed from the beginning.

Obama may be getting a significant majority of the black vote but they make up what (guessing here) < 15% of the population? Apparently it's not just blacks voting for him and he's already proven himself a uniter. He's got young voters motivated and interested as well as non-blacks behind him (I'm white BTW).

As far as being a member of a 'black values church', who cares? I'd rather he not go to a church period but the day a non-christian is elected president in this country is a long ways off. The fact that religion is front and center in politics these days sickens me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I generally support Obama, and this issue is not enough to change that, but it undeniably reflects negatively on him. Actually here in Minnesota we had a parallel issue with one of our representatives, Keith Ellison, a black Muslim who belonged to the Nation of Islam while in law school. He claimed he didn't know Minister Farrakhan's views at the time, which I frankly found hard to swallow, but it wasn't enough to prevent him being elected. He was in a very liberal district that would have elected almost any Democrat, though, and obviously it was a different situation from a general election for President.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

And Bush claimed to be a uniter. Why didn't he belong to or attend black churches? Why hasn't Hillary who has also claimed that she would bring the country together?

What about McCain? I'm sure that somewhere along the line he has made the same claim?

You are way to smart 1EZ to be using this line of reasoning. You are making it blatantly obvious that you do not want Obama to win and this has been the first thing (and surprisingly one of the weakest "issues) that has seemed to gain any real traction.

I make no bones about it, I do prefer Hillary. I've liked her ever since she took 30 days off from her busy schedule as First Lady to sit with her dying father. Not exactly the actions of a "monster" IMHO.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.

The questions have been answered by Obama and his supporters in this thread. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean they weren't answered. But go ahead and keep asking the same questions over and over to keep attention drawn to them. That is your motive after all.

Thank you for telling me what my motive is.
I wonder what your motive was when you called me a dumbass for starting this thread and a McCain supporter for implying that his relationship with the "minister" was troubling.

I guess your motive is to ignore this since you obviously can't come up with anything other than the same stupid argument that Obama didn't know or shouldn't be held responsible or accountable AT ALL for what his inspiration for the past 20 years has said in his racially tinged speeches. I guess when you run for president these things should be overlooked, unless of course the other side is guilty of doing the same.

Your motive is clear so I'm not saying anything that's not already known.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've already responded and I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Your motive is clear also, attack the mesenger.

The question is what are Obama's motives? How can he make the claim to be a uniter when his motives are unclear? Indeed his whole political career has revolved around catering to the black vote, now he wants to represent the whole country.

If Obama truly wanted to promote a multicultural society then why does he belong to and support a black values church? It seems to be hypocritical, a case of do as I say, not as I do.

His history does not seem to support his stated intentions.

Aside from this, he running as a "different kind of politician" with so called "integrity. He blew those positions when he asked us to believe that he was unaware of the Reverend Wright's preachings. You'd have to be a damn fool to believe that. If he had integrity, he would have found some way to say he was aware and control the damage from there.

He said he was aware. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you? The new stuff he said he wasn't aware. I think you've taken as much out of this as you can. Now you're just lying.