Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

So let me make sure I understand you correctly--you're assuming that "controversial comments" and "the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy" are the same.

I think Lanny's point is that those two statements mean different things. There's really no contradiction here, and certainly nothing that takes away from Obama's nuanced and bold statement on the matter.

[MarchHare]

Read carefully.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

And 4 days later...

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

But I thought he never heard him make any of those comments while he was in church?

Ok, make sure you read the following very slowly and very carefully, since you're clearly having difficulty understanding the context of Obama's comments.

In the first quotation, Obama says that he did not hear him preach the specific sermon that is the source of the controversy. This is 100% accurate, as it was confirmed that Obama was not present in the church at the time the infamous video was recorded but was instead travelling to Florida.

In the second statement, Obama says that he has heard the preacher make other controversal statements, but not the specific comments that caused this recent uproar. He then further elaborates that very few people are in 100% agreement with everything their religious leaders say, and he strongly disagrees with those particular comments.

There's nothing at all inconsistent about his two statements. Is that clear to you now?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's pretty straightforward -- this guy spends his time preaching and believing what I consider to be nonsense, so he shouldn't have an influence on decisions that affect the country, let alone the world.

But if you want to be specific... the government should be thinking "long term" all the time (even though they don't). The decisions they make might be felt for generations. This Parsley guy writes books about how people living right now can get ready for the end of the world. He ain't thinking about future generations because he, apparently, doesn't think there will be future generations and I can only imagine he'd plan accordingly.

Why worry about the future when there isn't one?

Well you've got a point there. For instance, I'm sure he wouldn't be as interested in long term environmental issues as someone who sees this planet as all that we have got. There is the stewardship issue of course: We need to be good stewards of what God provides. But he may not see the urgency that someone without his beliefs would have.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Another reason is that he believes (correct me if I'm wrong) there will be a war in the Middle East and then Jesus will come down from heaven and take him to paradise. One concern (of many) I have with this is that he just might think it's in his best interest to hasten what he thinks will be his ascension to heaven by stirring up more trouble over there.

Well I'm not sure exactly what this guys believes but, most Christians are happy they aren't the ones to decide when the tribulation occurs. Yes we go to heaven but, we go there anyways when we die. There would be very few Christians who don't have relatives who are unbelievers and salvation during the tribulation is a long shot. Your going from a time of grace to a time of judgement. Who would wish that on someone they love.
Also, I'm not sure how you would hasten the end as President. From what I understand the prophesy describes an uprising against Israel by several nations that is squashed by a world leader who promises peace for all. This guy is seen as the long awaited Messiah(Christ) and quickly sets up a world government. At about 3 and a half years in this antichrist turns into the tyrant he is. Bad stuff continues to happen until the seventh year when the antichrist mounts an attack on Jerusalem. At that point Jesus returns and sets things right. The church leaves the scene somewhere along this time line depending on whether you are pre, mid, or post-tribe.
So if this guy sees the Muslim nations as the initial attackers of Israel who's side does he advise McCain to be on?[/quote]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Bla bla bla. I don't think McCain actually believes any of this stuff anyway and is just currying favor with those who do. I still don't like the idea of people who think "Satan" exists and is out there pulling strings, or that I am a heathen destined to spend eternity in his clutches, having influence on anything other than their own mind.

I agree. I doubt McCain holds any strong religious convictions. Most politicians do things to get and retain public office that are in direct conflict with strong religious faith. Bill Clinton and I assume Hilliary are Southern Baptists in name at least.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So let me make sure I understand you correctly--you're assuming that "controversial comments" and "the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy" are the same.

Unless of course you believe that some of the crazy statements he gave aren't so controversial as some of the other 'controversial' statements.

I never said he was 'lying'...I just find it strange that Obama would first deny about knowing that Wright makes statements like that...and then 4 days later reports come out that he knew about it, and actually said in Feburary of last year that

You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.'”

So please don't give me this crap that he never knew about it.

I think Lanny's point is that those two statements mean different things. There's really no contradiction here, and certainly nothing that takes away from Obama's nuanced and bold statement on the matter.

I disagree. Just about every statement that Rev. Wright has given has been controversial. ALL of them. Yet Obama initially denied knowing about them. Maybe he was on the way to Miami and missed 'one' sermon....that isn't the problem. The problem is that Rev. Wright has a history of making racially charged comments, and not only did Obama stand by him for 20 years, get married by him to his wife, allowed him to baptize his children, and financially supported him....he also considered him a close friend.

Say McCain associated with a white supremacist church for 20 years. Wouldn't you consider that a bit strange?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know....Oprah left that church years about because of the rhetoric. I wonder why Obama didn't take the same stand?

Someone watches CNN.

Azure, you know perfectly well the context of the statements, and that you've completely twisted the context in which they were said.


The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
Obama - 14 Mar 08

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.
Obama - 18 Mar 08

The bolded parts are the issue with your comparison. If Obama would have said, in the second statement, "Did I hear him make those remarks. . .", then you would have had a case. He never denied the fact that the Rev. made the comments, he was saying he did not attend that specific sermon. If I remember correctly, the comment in the first part of your quote was a response to the question of 'why didn't you get up and leave if you disagreed with what he said?'

Obviously you cannot leave a lecture you did not attend. Point in case.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

but not the specific comments that caused this recent uproar. He then further elaborates that very few people are in 100% agreement with everything their religious leaders say, and he strongly disagrees with those particular comments.

Thats a bunch of bullcrap. There are numerous comments that are causing the uproar. Don't tell me Obama never heard 'any' of them...which he initially claimed. Oprah apparently did...and she left that church.

If my religious leader promoted white power, I'd get the hell out of that church. But maybe thats just me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Someone watches CNN.

I do, surprise, surprise.

Azure, you know perfectly well the context of the statements, and that you've completely twisted the context in which they were said.

Thats not exactly the point I'm trying to make here.

I know the context of those statements....and I believe Obama when he said he was in Miami during that 'one' sermon. But I don't believe for one second that Obama is stupid enough to not know EXACTLY where his people stand.

There were many other sermons.....not too mention a few where a reporter actually SAW him there along with the Secret Service while Rev. Wright was preaching hateful crap. He was, which means two things.

1. Barack Obama has had a close friendship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and was well aware of the Pastor's passionate beliefs, but chooses to pretend otherwise for the public.

2. Barack Obama has had a close friendship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright for 20 years yet was somehow completely unaware of the Pastor's passionate beliefs.

I find #2 unbelievable...simply cause I don't think Obama is that stupid....that he would attend church for 20 years and not even know where his OWN pastor and close friend stood on numerous issues.

Therefore....according to what Obama has said himself about actually BEING there, while Rev Wright made crazy statements....I must conclude that he either too stupid to realize that associating with such people isn't exactly a good campaign boaster, or that he knew about it and never thought it would become an issue, or worse, he agrees with it.

I don't think I believe that last one. Because I don't believe for a second that Obama actually believes that rhetoric that his pastor was preaching.

But I'm skeptical. Something about attending for 20 years and considering him a close friend makes me skeptical.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, its funny.

Read carefully.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

And 4 days later...

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

But I thought he never heard him make any of those comments while he was in church?

He didn't because he wasn't there when those statements were made.

You're either playing dumb to try and make your point valid or...

[Calgaryborn]

I think some of you should read the following article and follow the link in it to what was taken off of this churches web site a couple of days ago:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59230


Here is the entire text of the section before it was redacted:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by the late Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the Black Community

3. Commitment to the Black Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."



Obama's membership in that church is equal to finding out McCain was a member of a Arian church. If it is unaceptable to promote a white America it should be unacceptable to promote a black America.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh and...

The original article from August 2007.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...8/194812.shtml

Would this be the same Newsmax article that was referenced by Bill Kristol and has the New York Times reconsidering their hiring of the afforementioned neocon because of the TWO retractable errors he has made in his first TWO columns?

Quality work there Sparky. If you didn't get your information from sources with zero credibility it might give your position some sort of base.

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree. Just about every statement that Rev. Wright has given has been controversial. ALL of them. Yet Obama initially denied knowing about them. Maybe he was on the way to Miami and missed 'one' sermon....that isn't the problem. The problem is that Rev. Wright has a history of making racially charged comments, and not only did Obama stand by him for 20 years, get married by him to his wife, allowed him to baptize his children, and financially supported him....he also considered him a close friend.

So everything that Wright has said in the past 20 years has been inflammatory? Bull. So everything Wright has said is wrong? Again, bull. In 20 years EVERYONE is going to say something considered inflammatory. Everyone is going to say something regrettable. Wright was in a position that gave him a stage to make more public statements than most, and his commentary would be construed as being racially motivated by the white community, but you have to understand that this is the nature of church's like this. Go into any church in the bible belt and it is very political, regardless of the faith. Depending upon your religious or political affiliation you would come away offended. Funny thing is, that people still go back, week after week after week.

You know what, take religion out of the equation. I'm sure everyone has heard their mother or father say something that has made them cringe. I know my folks have said stuff that has made me roll my eyes into the back of my head. They have said stuff around my friends that have them thinking what world they are from. That happens. You know what? It doesn't change the way I feel about them. I am who I am and they are who they are. I listen to what they say, but my views are pretty well opposed to everything they say. You can have a relationship with someone, and hear them speak on subjects week after week, and NOT be a believer in their position. No one is guilty in this regard just by association.

Say McCain associated with a white supremacist church for 20 years. Wouldn't you consider that a bit strange?

How about a church that believes in the apocolypse? Does that count?

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Someone watches CNN.

Azure, you know perfectly well the context of the statements, and that you've completely twisted the context in which they were said.


The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
Obama - 14 Mar 08

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.
Obama - 18 Mar 08

The bolded parts are the issue with your comparison. If Obama would have said, in the second statement, "Did I hear him make those remarks. . .", then you would have had a case. He never denied the fact that the Rev. made the comments, he was saying he did not attend that specific sermon. If I remember correctly, the comment in the first part of your quote was a response to the question of 'why didn't you get up and leave if you disagreed with what he said?'

Obviously you cannot leave a lecture you did not attend. Point in case.

Game, set and match.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Would this be the same Newsmax article that was referenced by Bill Kristol and has the New York Times reconsidering their hiring of the afforementioned neocon because of the TWO retractable errors he has made in his first TWO columns?

Quality work there Sparky. If you didn't get your information from sources with zero credibility it might give your position some sort of base.

Can you back that up with credible sources? that is a serious question

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Can you back that up with credible sources? that is a serious question

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...fact_in_an.php

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

He didn't because he wasn't there when those statements were made.

You're either playing dumb to try and make your point valid or...

Or you just don't get it.

It doesn't matter if he was there for THAT sermon.

Obama's people knew about Wright LAST year.

In a Sunday conference call, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod admitted that the campaign recognized Wright as a potential problem more than a year ago and had disinvited the pastor from giving the invocation at the announcement of Obama's presidential candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007, in Springfield, Ill.

So maybe he didn't hear 'those' comments....but the FACT is that Obama was at other sermons were Wright ALSO made controversial comments. Even despite trying to initially deny that.

[arsenal]

Insert humerus article here:
Some black guy is asking the nation for change.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news...ion_for_change

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think some of you should read the following article and follow the link in it to what was taken off of this churches web site a couple of days ago:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59230


Here is the entire text of the section before it was redacted:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by the late Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the Black Community

3. Commitment to the Black Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."



Obama's membership in that church is equal to finding out McCain was a member of a Arian church. If it is unaceptable to promote a white America it should be unacceptable to promote a black America.

So, what exactly is wrong there? Do you actually know what the "black value system" is? I certainly don't. I also don't think that it is much different than the "white value system". Interestingly enough, the values you list above are pretty similar to that of the Moron church and the expectations of that institution. Replace the word "black" with the word "Mormon" and you'll see exactly what I mean.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Can you back that up with credible sources? that is a serious question

Are the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN credible sources?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So, what exactly is wrong there? Do you actually know what the "black value system" is? I certainly don't. I also don't think that it is much different than the "white value system". Interestingly enough, the values you list above are pretty similar to that of the Moron church and the expectations of that institution. Replace the word "black" with the word "Mormon" and you'll see exactly what I mean.

OK then. Try replacing the word "black" with the word "white".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...fact_in_an.php

Yes of course.

On July 22nd, Obama is listed as a speaker in Miami at the National Council of La Raza at 1:30 (EST). That would be 12:30 CST.

The posted times for the services at Trinity are 7:30 EST and 11:00 EST. Obviously he couldn't have attended the 11am service. But the commenter contends he couldn't have attended the 7:30am service either based on an assumed flight time of 4 hours between Chicago and Miami.

However, according to the OAG, commercial flights only take 2 hours and 50 minutes flight time, and as I recall, the Obama campaign uses a chartered jet which could cut down on even that time. So while the author of the article claiming to have seen Obama at the July 22 service didn't specify which service, it is possible he could have attended the 7:30 service (8:30 EST) and still made the Miami speech at 1:30 EST. He may have left the service early (after the sermon) caught the campaign plane at about 9:00 CST (10:00 EST) and made Miami by 12:30 EST for a 1:30 speech.

Not that he did of course.

I don't see why this is such a big deal....Obama already admits to being the pew when controversial statements were made.

THAT should be the issue at hand....not whether or not he was in Miami all day or not.

But keep deflecting.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Are the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN credible sources?

not if it isn't peered reviewed

[Table 5]

If its not Fox News, it's not credible.