Obama's Rejection Of Pastor Unfortunate

[MMDad]

WTF?
I'm supposed to feel better about his supporting a church, having a spiritual guide that blames HIV and crack on white people because his granny was white?

He is saying he wants to disown her because she is white, and is disappointed that he cannot.

 

[dems4me]

Wow.

I haven't been following this particular angle for the most part, but I knew some of what was going on with this "minister" or whatever he wants to call himself.

I didn't, however, realize how deeply the well sank until this morning. I heard sound-bytes of this guy for the first time today.


Wow.

And this guy was like Obama's "uncle"? This is the guy who they wrote checks to every week, and considered themselves a member of his flock? This guy baptized his children and married him and his wife? This is the guy he chose as his spiritual mentor?

Disgusting.

Absolutely. Disgusting.




And NOW Obama is disavowing this psycho. That's just pathetic. Anyone who believes that you can possibly go to a church for 20 YEARS - and write checks to a minister for 20 YEARS, and break bread with them and consider them a member of your familly - without knowing what they stand for and believing it on any level, is a slobbering mollusk.

I'm probably late on this discussion and it'll take hours to catch up I agree 100% of what you said.

1) The pastor married Obama and his wife, baptized his children, he's been a spiritual mentor for 20 years and then say he's like an eccentric uncle?? WTF? Family is something you CANT choose, a Pastor is one you can. My other issue was the use of the GD word. As a Christian, I have NEVER seen anyone dare wear the cloth of God yell out the GD word - you can't even say that was taken out of context. That bothers me more than anything else whether your race be red, white or black. I think I've only used the GD word maybe 5-10 times if that in my LIFE time and I CERTAINLY was NOT representing God. He rattles it off like there's no tomorrow.

2) The other issue is the reverse racism. If it was the other way around and Hillary's spiritual mentor was yelling white power, the way Obama's preacher was, it would be viewed a LOT worse than the Obama preacher problem.

I was listening to Michael Baisden coming home last night and he has a guest on his show (George Wilbon (sp?)) and callers that call in. They have been advocating Obama and endorsing him for the past month or two. Eitherway, they were playing clips of Obama's pastor (really don't even want to call him that) and the clips were watered down versions of what was really said in his screaming rants - NOT what was said that is getting everyone upset. So the callers are all calling in saying how the media is against the black man, there was nothing wrong with what was said - what's the big deal - I go to his church too kind of comments Then they kept making it a point to keep bringing up that even white people are calling up and can't believe the stink that was made over it. They were NOT playing the objectionable rants of the pastor at all.

This whole situation just sickens me. I find it freightening that so many clueless uninformed people are flocking to his bandwagon. And WTF is Dean throughout all of this Democrat BS going on? Anyone know what pile of sand his head is hiding under? If so, I'd like to kick it

I'm done with my rant Sorry if things or views were repeated or reitterated. Just wanted to vent and chime in.

 

[vraiblonde]

Giulliani pulled the wool over Vrai's eyes with that too.

Just because you need to be told what to think doesn't mean everyone does. I caught it before Giuliani reacted. Indeed Ron Paul blames US foreign policy for 9-11. He's said so repeatedly. Maybe you need a little lesson in comprehension?

But thanks for playing.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'm probably late on this discussion and it'll take hours to catch up I agree 100% of what you said.

1) The pastor married Obama and his wife, baptized his children, he's been a spiritual mentor for 20 years and then say he's like an eccentric uncle?? WTF? Family is something you CANT choose, a Pastor is one you can. My other issue was the use of the GD word. As a Christian, I have NEVER seen anyone dare wear the cloth of God yell out the GD word - you can't even say that was taken out of context. That bothers me more than anything else whether your race be red, white or black. I think I've only used the GD word maybe 5-10 times if that in my LIFE time and I CERTAINLY was NOT representing God. He rattles it off like there's no tomorrow.

2) The other issue is the reverse racism. If it was the other way around and Hillary's spiritual mentor was yelling white power, the way Obama's preacher was, it would be viewed a LOT worse than the Obama preacher problem.

I was listening to Michael Baisden coming home last night and he has a guest on his show (George Wilbon (sp?)) and callers that call in. They have been advocating Obama and endorsing him for the past month or two. Eitherway, they were playing clips of Obama's pastor (really don't even want to call him that) and the clips were watered down versions of what was really said in his screaming rants - NOT what was said that is getting everyone upset. So the callers are all calling in saying how the media is against the black man, there was nothing wrong with what was said - what's the big deal - I go to his church too kind of comments Then they kept making it a point to keep bringing up that even white people are calling up and can't believe the stink that was made over it. They were NOT playing the objectionable rants of the pastor at all.

This whole situation just sickens me. I find it freightening that so many clueless uninformed people are flocking to his bandwagon. And WTF is Dean throughout all of this Democrat BS going on? Anyone know what pile of sand his head is hiding under? If so, I'd like to kick it

I'm done with my rant Sorry if things or views were repeated or reitterated. Just wanted to vent and chime in.

Dems, I think you missed it. I think this minister is as off the wall as can be, but saying, " God damn 'insert something'." when actually asking God to damn that "something" is not using the Lord's name in vain. I personally would not ask God to damn anyone or anything.

You are right that a person is condemned by what comes out of their mouth, but that includes a four letter English work meaning to fornicate, hell (when used as an expletive and not a place), BS, WTF (You do know what that stands for right?), a four letter word meaning fecal matter, and other disparaging expletives regarding one's parentage or birth linage.

Expletives and vulgarities are only needed by those that can't properly express themselves.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Just because you need to be told what to think doesn't mean everyone does. I caught it before Giuliani reacted. Indeed Ron Paul blames US foreign policy for 9-11. He's said so repeatedly. Maybe you need a little lesson in comprehension?

But thanks for playing.

As do you. Ron Paul is correct that if the U.S. had minded its own business and not made itself the world's cop, we would not be the world's target. That is what he said. You fell for the "Ron Paul blames the U.S. for 9-11" junk that the media handed out hook, line, and sinker.

We should have fought WWI and gone home. No rebuilding, No bases. If WWII had come along, we should have done the same thing. We should not have been in Korea or Viet Nam. Those who stick their noses in other peoples business without being invited usually get it bloodied.

 

[Larry Gude]

We should...

As do you. Ron Paul is correct that if the U.S. had minded its own business and not made itself the world's cop, we would not be the world's target. That is what he said. You fell for the "Ron Paul blames the U.S. for 9-11" junk that the media handed out hook, line, and sinker.

We should have fought WWI and gone home. No rebuilding, No bases. If WWII had come along, we should have done the same thing. We should not have been in Korea or Viet Nam. Those who stick their noses in other peoples business without being invited usually get it bloodied.

...NOT have fought WWI. If we'd stayed out, WWI doesn't happen because the Brits, Germs and Frogs woulda had to make peace without us.

As for Paul and the rest, dead on.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...NOT have fought WWI. If we'd stayed out, WWI doesn't happen because the Brits, Germs and Frogs woulda had to make peace without us.

As for Paul and the rest, dead on.

Oh, I agree that we should not have fought WWI. I was just starting with "recent" history. We should have let Europe take care of themselves. Same with Asia, Africa, and South America.

If some one does something nasty to the U.S., stomp them into a grease spot, take what looks good and still works, and go home and let them rebuild on their own nickel, yen, or ruble.

 

[vraiblonde]

You fell for the "Ron Paul blames the U.S. for 9-11" junk that the media handed out hook, line, and sinker.

Why do you say that when I've already told you that I raised my eyebrows before Rudy and the media said a word about it? I don't need the media to tell me what to think.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I disagree with him.

He thinks that if we'd have stayed out of the Middle East's business, there would have been no 9-11. And he's right, but I do not think we should have stayed out of the Middle East's business. If we had, there would be no Israel today. Iraq would have taken over Kuwait. All those crazy people would be running around unfettered to do whatever they pleased and get bigger and bigger, until they could finally take us on.

So I do not agree with Ron Paul's global politics, or lack thereof. We cannot allow our insane enemies to get bigger and stronger. The very idea of that is ridiculous.

But he did indeed say that we brought 9-11 on ourselves because of our foreign policy. He's said it more than once.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why do you say that when I've already told you that I raised my eyebrows before Rudy and the media said a word about it? I don't need the media to tell me what to think.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I disagree with him.

He thinks that if we'd have stayed out of the Middle East's business, there would have been no 9-11. And he's right, but I do not think we should have stayed out of the Middle East's business. If we had, there would be no Israel today. Iraq would have taken over Kuwait. All those crazy people would be running around unfettered to do whatever they pleased and get bigger and bigger, until they could finally take us on.

So I do not agree with Ron Paul's global politics, or lack thereof. We cannot allow our insane enemies to get bigger and stronger. The very idea of that is ridiculous.

But he did indeed say that we brought 9-11 on ourselves because of our foreign policy. He's said it more than once.

And you disagree with the founders and the Constitution. Why do you live here?

 

[Sonsie]

The American Spectator has an interesting, and somewhat convoluted, story about Obama's church. I'm not sure what to make of it just yet but it makes for interesting reading. To say the United Church of Christ (UCC) is a very radical organization is an understatement.

Obama and the Bombmaker's Church

 

[dems4me]

Dems, I think you missed it. I think this minister is as off the wall as can be, but saying, " God damn 'insert something'." when actually asking God to damn that "something" is not using the Lord's name in vain. I personally would not ask God to damn anyone or anything.

I disagree :shrug: the GD word is STILL the GD word and certainly should not be thrown around repetitiously by a pastor in a sermon. Think WWJD? I certainly don't think he was speaking like that on Semon on the Mount. He should be disrobbed or whatever it is they do.

 

[Bann]

...remember who said it, but last night on, I think, CNN, a black commentator said that these type remarks, Wright remarks, are not unusual at all in many/most black churches and that is part of what Obama is going to touch on today, the perceptions of blacks vis a vis America.

Outstanding analysis. I only watched the first few minutes, and agree wholeheartedly.

My favorite part:I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be moved by this. "You know Ted Bundy the murderer, but I know Ted Bundy the flower arranger - I can't dismiss HIM!"

 

[Bann]

I just talked to the avocados.


They're hurt, but they still love you and they forgive you. It's just going to be a while before they can trust you again.

:

 

[Bann]

Today is the birthday of my beloved Jani B, so I took her to lunch, which was much more soul enriching than watching Senator Guacamole splat on the floor.

I did read a few snippets of the speech and all I can say is, what did you expect? I know nobody thought he'd take responsibility for his own choices.


Obama Condemns Pastor’s ‘Incendiary Language’ But Explains and Defends Continued Relationship - America’s Election HQ

See? It's all Rush Limbaugh's fault.

I TOLD YOU SO.

As soon as I heard the snippets later (missed the live deal) I thought AHA!!! SO predictable.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...

Ron Paul is an isolationist. ...

Oh, and can I get you a broader brush?

Ron Paul is only a military isolationist. He is not an economic isolationist nor a social isolationist. But then he does not believe in foreign aid.

Not allowed in the Constitution; he does not believe in it. Allowed in the Constitution; he believes in it. Simple and absolutely correct. Any deviation from that is perversion of the government. Don't like it? Lobby for an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I disagree :shrug: the GD word is STILL the GD word and certainly should not be thrown around repetitiously by a pastor in a sermon. Think WWJD? I certainly don't think he was speaking like that on Semon on the Mount. He should be disrobbed or whatever it is they do.

You still miss it, but that is not unusual.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh, and can I get you a broader brush?

I don't need a broader brush, thanks.

If we have economic interests in a foreign country, we also have an interest in keeping it stable. That typically means military, since asking nice doesn't seem to work.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I don't need a broader brush, thanks.

If we have economic interests in a foreign country, we also have an interest in keeping it stable. That typically means military, since asking nice doesn't seem to work.

Economic interests should not involve the military. If a country does not trade fairly, don't trade with them. It is our own wasteful stupidity that have made us dependent and not able to turn our backs and walk away from some markets.

Force should not be used to open markets or structure prices. It is not our business nor should it be to worry about the stability of another country. That is their business. We should keep our noses out. How many times in the past have we stepped in and found ourselves on the non-winning side recently? Korea: stalemate. Viet Nam: loss, Iran: loss (we backed the Shah). And when we back the losing side, we become the enemy of the side that won by natural succession.

Trade is just that. We have something they want and they have something we want. If that is not the case, then there is no basis for trade. The military may be able to force trade, but it will only be a festering sore.

 

[vraiblonde]

Trade is just that. We have something they want and they have something we want. If that is not the case, then there is no basis for trade. The military may be able to force trade, but it will only be a festering sore.

Great, but 9 times out of 10, the actual government DOES want to trade or we wouldn't be there in the first place. Then some terrorist group comes in and screws everything up. So should we just say, "Okay, forget it. Ya'll get your civil war under control and we'll be back"?

Everyone complains that ObL was a Saudi, but he didn't run the country and had no say-so over who Saudi Arabia trades with or not. Al Qaeda has no say-so over Afghanistan, except for when they use terrorist tactics. None of those people are elected and they represent no one.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Great, but 9 times out of 10, the actual government DOES want to trade or we wouldn't be there in the first place. Then some terrorist group comes in and screws everything up. So should we just say, "Okay, forget it. Ya'll get your civil war under control and we'll be back"?

Everyone complains that ObL was a Saudi, but he didn't run the country and had no say-so over who Saudi Arabia trades with or not. Al Qaeda has no say-so over Afghanistan, except for when they use terrorist tactics. None of those people are elected and they represent no one.

But, in reality, it is not our business.

It is not our business to control what products are produced, crops are grown or harvested or anything else about another countries internal matters. If they want to be a bunch of coke heads, let them fry their gourds. If they want to use opium until all they can do is drool, not our business.

If it is their civil war, then it is theirs; an internal matter. When you guys decide who is really running this place we'll be back with our wheat or whatever we are trading. Until then, see ya.