Jump to content

Obama's Pastor


Controlled Chaos
 Share

Recommended Posts

He might not be as outspoken as this guy but you absolutely dont go to a church for 20 years if you disagree with what is preached there. Theres no way Obama is going to to publicly admit he agrees with it thought because that would be suicide during an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 521
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 04:43 PM)
He might not be as outspoken as this guy but you absolutely dont go to a church for 20 years if you disagree with what is preached there. Theres no way Obama is going to to publicly admit he agrees with it thought because that would be suicide during an election.

The difference is...for about the last 10-15 years, as a politician on the south side of Chicago, it's been to his benefit to be seen as on the side of this preacher, because he is a popular figure on the south side who has been a good organizer, who has a strong connection with the people, there, etc. So, one could argue on one side that he had little choice but to be there because of the fact that he was a politician working in that preacher's area who couldn't afford to denoucne him. On the other hand, you could point out that the guy was a key figure in Obama's rise on the South Side, so it's more than just a religious connection, there are political connections there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 03:41 PM)
Yes, actually I've done exactly that with this revelation about Obama's pastor. I don't at all like the fact that he's continued to belong to the same church for 20 years if he so thoroughly denounces all of the controversial aspects of the pastor's message.

 

It doesn't mean i all of a sudden believe anothr candidate is a better choice, but I end up feeling frustrated/angry with Obama for either:

 

1) not having enough moral conviction to take a stand and leave this particular congregation if he disagreed with so much of what the paster espoused, or

 

2) maybe agreeing with the pastor on some of those views, even if now it's not politically convenient to cop to it.

 

It is definitely a strike against the guy in my book, and it's not the first one but may be the biggest as far as my belief that this can be a guy to help move the country past some of this ugliness.

 

Gotta agree with this post in whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 07:06 PM)
The difference is...for about the last 10-15 years, as a politician on the south side of Chicago, it's been to his benefit to be seen as on the side of this preacher, because he is a popular figure on the south side who has been a good organizer, who has a strong connection with the people, there, etc. So, one could argue on one side that he had little choice but to be there because of the fact that he was a politician working in that preacher's area who couldn't afford to denoucne him. On the other hand, you could point out that the guy was a key figure in Obama's rise on the South Side, so it's more than just a religious connection, there are political connections there as well.

I may be wrong, but for a brief time wasnt this guy going around with Obama and campaigning with him? Stuff like this is so touchy because youre damned if you do, damned if you dont. This might be a little too controversial of as point but can anyone imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and either Hillary or McCain was involved in something like this. I think the double standard for stuff like this needs to be checked at the door in such a high profile situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 05:48 PM)
I may be wrong, but for a brief time wasnt this guy going around with Obama and campaigning with him? Stuff like this is so touchy because youre damned if you do, damned if you dont. This might be a little too controversial of as point but can anyone imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and either Hillary or McCain was involved in something like this. I think the double standard for stuff like this needs to be checked at the door in such a high profile situation.

So like if McCain was on a stage stating how he proudly accepted the endorsement of a guy who could easily be described as an anti-catholic bigot or referred to another guy who said that the main goal of the U.S. was to "Destroy Islam" as his spiritual adviser? McCain has the exact same deals going for him, it's just less of an issue because it's ok to hate on gays, catholics, and Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 07:56 PM)
So like if McCain was on a stage stating how he proudly accepted the endorsement of a guy who could easily be described as an anti-catholic bigot or referred to another guy who said that the main goal of the U.S. was to "Destroy Islam" as his spiritual adviser? McCain has the exact same deals going for him, it's just less of an issue because it's ok to hate on gays, catholics, and Muslims.

It was more geared toward race than religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it tough to believe anything Obama says on this subject since he has been going to this jackass's church for the past 20 years. Not only that, but this racist idiot, who proclaims himself as a holy man, married Obama and his wife, and is the god father of all his children (I'm not sure if he just baptized his kids or is also the godfather, I forget). If Obama did not agree with his views, why the f*** did he stay around listening to him for 20 years? If I heard someone like this racist anti-American Wright talk about how America is evil and have "god damn America", and him blaming the "rich white people" for all the problems in the world, I'd not only never go back to his church, but I might even kick him in his stupid head.

 

Some more of Wright's claims are that the rich white men created HIV to commit genocide against the blacks, and that the rich white men created drugs to give to black people so the white men can imprison the blacks. This Wright fella can rot in hell for the rest of eternity for all I care. But then again, the white man probably created hell to keep all the blacks out so the whites can have all to themselves.

 

This can be crippling to Obama's campaign whether you agree or not. However, since pretty much 80% of the media is in the tank for Obama, he might get away with this. Funny that CBS, CNN, and NBC haven't mentioned anything about this and ABC maybe spent 5 minutes on this subject. Whatever happened to the good old days when journalism was suppossed to be unbiased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 10:29 PM)
I find it tough to believe anything Obama says on this subject since he has been going to this jackass's church for the past 20 years. Not only that, but this racist idiot, who proclaims himself as a holy man, married Obama and his wife, and is the god father of all his children (I'm not sure if he just baptized his kids or is also the godfather, I forget). If Obama did not agree with his views, why the f*** did he stay around listening to him for 20 years? If I heard someone like this racist anti-American Wright talk about how America is evil and have "god damn America", and him blaming the "rich white people" for all the problems in the world, I'd not only never go back to his church, but I might even kick him in his stupid head.

 

Some more of Wright's claims are that the rich white men created HIV to commit genocide against the blacks, and that the rich white men created drugs to give to black people so the white men can imprison the blacks. This Wright fella can rot in hell for the rest of eternity for all I care. But then again, the white man probably created hell to keep all the blacks out so the whites can have all to themselves.

 

This can be crippling to Obama's campaign whether you agree or not. However, since pretty much 80% of the media is in the tank for Obama, he might get away with this. Funny that CBS, CNN, and NBC haven't mentioned anything about this and ABC maybe spent 5 minutes on this subject. Whatever happened to the good old days when journalism was suppossed to be unbiased?

Im sure Fox will cover it. I agree with everything you said though and thats the point I was trying to get across. He isnt going to say he agrees with this no matter what because it would kill him in the election but I find it impossible to believe all of this is just a coincidence and he doesnt agree with any of it because if he didnt he wouldnt have stuck around him for so long. Obviously every candidate has skeletons in their closet but Im sick of the media, and people defending Obamas every move, acting like he is different and he isnt capable of something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 10:35 PM)
Im sure Fox will cover it. I agree with everything you said though and thats the point I was trying to get across. He isnt going to say he agrees with this no matter what because it would kill him in the election but I find it impossible to believe all of this is just a coincidence and he doesnt agree with any of it because if he didnt he wouldnt have stuck around him for so long. Obviously every candidate has skeletons in their closet but Im sick of the media, and people defending Obamas every move, acting like he is different and he isnt capable of something like this.

It will all get covered. He has to get nominated first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 10:35 PM)
Im sure Fox will cover it. I agree with everything you said though and thats the point I was trying to get across. He isnt going to say he agrees with this no matter what because it would kill him in the election but I find it impossible to believe all of this is just a coincidence and he doesnt agree with any of it because if he didnt he wouldnt have stuck around him for so long. Obviously every candidate has skeletons in their closet but Im sick of the media, and people defending Obamas every move, acting like he is different and he isnt capable of something like this.

Oh yeah, Fox is covering this. Fox is probably the only place to go if you want to see the least bias news with all of the news. And I know Obama is obviously going to deny he agrees with this Wright character, but it is stupid to believe anything he says on this situation becuase of the evidence.

Edited by BearSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be crippling to Obama's campaign whether you agree or not. However, since pretty much 80% of the media is in the tank for Obama, he might get away with this. Funny that CBS, CNN, and NBC haven't mentioned anything about this and ABC maybe spent 5 minutes on this subject. Whatever happened to the good old days when journalism was suppossed to be unbiased?

 

I don't know about the other two but CNN headline news seemed to run it every ten minutes. It was covered on CNN multiple times. So your wrong on CNN for sure. I can't speak to CBS and NBC. And Fox News will report anything that furthers John McCain going into the White House. A vote for Hillary is equal to a vote for McCain. Because McCain will trounce Hilliary in a general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 10:00 AM)
I don't know about the other two but CNN headline news seemed to run it every ten minutes. It was covered on CNN multiple times. So your wrong on CNN for sure. I can't speak to CBS and NBC. And Fox News will report anything that furthers John McCain going into the White House. A vote for Hillary is equal to a vote for McCain. Because McCain will trounce Hilliary in a general election.

when the story first came out, Thursday I believe it was, Fox was the only one to show it. CNN didn't do anything on it, and neither did CBS or NBC. Now, they kinda have to do it because it has gotten so big. But it is obvious the majority of the media is in the tank for Obama. Not only on television but also in the newspapers. The Chicago Sun Times, the New York Time, etc.

 

I'm not saying Fox isn't unbiased, because they are in favor of McCain and the Republicans, but at least they will report all the news. Fox's bias for Republicans is nothing compared to the majoirty of the media's bias and love for Obama/Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kinda funny how alot of people who don't think it is fair to dwell on Obama's religion had no problems talking about the evils of Mormonism. And I don't mean alot of the people in here, just pundits, commentators, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 11:21 AM)
when the story first came out, Thursday I believe it was, Fox was the only one to show it. CNN didn't do anything on it, and neither did CBS or NBC. Now, they kinda have to do it because it has gotten so big. But it is obvious the majority of the media is in the tank for Obama. Not only on television but also in the newspapers. The Chicago Sun Times, the New York Time, etc.

 

I'm not saying Fox isn't unbiased, because they are in favor of McCain and the Republicans, but at least they will report all the news. Fox's bias for Republicans is nothing compared to the majoirty of the media's bias and love for Obama/Democrats.

Iirc, the first article on all this came from ABC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think jackiehayes brought up an excellent point earlier about churches as communities, not just one pastor. That is what I was getting at earlier - he just said it better than I did.

 

And there is a difference between defending this pastor (which I was not doing), or even defending Obama (which I was sort of doing), and simply stating that this is not some sort of a mind-turning thing against Obama. I don't like seeing it, I don't like hearing it, and it does actually give me some pause about him. But it doesn't change my mind in some huge way. Neither did the revelations about McCain's spiritual advisor - I'd still vote for McCain over Clinton at this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chickens really coming home to roost on this one. And just another in an endlessly long list of reasons why I don't trust churches, religion, or the obsessively religious. I have no idea why people like Michelle and Barack, of such a high quality, would go to a church like this. It's maddening.

Edited by KipWellsFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 10:39 AM)
It is kinda funny how alot of people who don't think it is fair to dwell on Obama's religion had no problems talking about the evils of Mormonism. And I don't mean alot of the people in here, just pundits, commentators, etc.

 

That's a good point. I didn't even think about that. I had some friends that were doing exit polls and the overwhelming reason people didn't vote for Romney was because he's Morman. Doesn't seem fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 01:49 PM)
Chickens really coming home to roost on this one. And just another in an endlessly long list of reasons why I don't trust churches, religion, or the obsessively religious. I have no idea why people like Michelle and Barack, of such a high quality, would go to a church like this. It's maddening.

Well... now maybe we're learning more about the real Michelle and Barack? Hmmmm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 01:49 PM)
Chickens really coming home to roost on this one. And just another in an endlessly long list of reasons why I don't trust churches, religion, or the obsessively religious. I have no idea why people like Michelle and Barack, of such a high quality, would go to a church like this. It's maddening.

I think youre last sentence is the problem. We dont know enough about them to label them "high quality." Look at Michelles thesis in college and that gives you an idea of what kind of substance were dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 01:52 PM)
Actually, I think the story broke on talk radio and FOX ran with it that night.

The story has been around in some form for over a year, but it picked up steam with the Farrakhan award, and really hit its stride with the analysis of the printed sermons. I'm fairly certain ABC published the first article reporting on those published sermons. (And it does seem that they are credited most often by early stories/blogs.) Fox also, as I understand it, bought the sermons. I'm pretty sure they reported on those after ABC, but independently. As far as I'm concerned, both Fox and ABC broke the story (at least, this phase of the story), but it's simply not true that Fox was the only one covering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 02:24 PM)
There were plenty of legitimate reasons to not vote for a candidate. What religion they are isn't one of them.

This isnt even a religion issue. This isnt even a Muslim church. Its a race issue. I dont understand how much people need to see or hear before they step back and question something. Between this and Michelles thesis in college about racial divide, even though she got their because of affirmative action, shows that this might not be a coincidence. Of course he is going to denounce it but for people to think its a non issue is delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...