RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation

RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 5:43:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity The sour taste I mentioned, that which you seem to be in denial about, is, in fact, the REAL question you refuse to ask. The one TRULY stuck in your craw. ASK IT, already, so we can be done with this nonsense. ASK!!! I ask the questions I have to ask. If you have a question you wish to pose of me, ask it--here, if pertinent, in a separate thread, if not, or in private message if you like. Ask your question. I will answer.

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 5:56:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Just out of curiosity, were you asking the same questions when Dubya was spouting his born-again bullshit and claiming God wanted him to be President back in 2000? I don't know about you, but that scared me more than this. Unfortunately, I was right. By 2000, I already had the answers (two election campaigns for Governor of Texas) for Bush. He was a born-again Christian fundamentalist then and he is one still. He was hostile to gays and civil libertarians, with little use for concepts like mercy and forgiveness. His only saving grace was that he was far more hostile to politicians wanting to raise taxes. Did I ask the question of Bush? Damn skippy. Didn't like the answers when he was Governor of Texas. Don't like the answers now. No, you didn't ask the question of Bush but I think it is relevant to the conversation. As far as "skippy" goes, we don't need to stoop to that level. But I can. Say the word and the game is on!

celticlord2112 -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 6:26:15 AM)
quote: No, you didn't ask the question of Bush but I think it is relevant to the conversation. As far as "skippy" goes, we don't need to stoop to that level. But I can. Say the word and the game is on! The question is relevant. I quite agree. I had already posed this question about Bush long before 2000. Living in Texas and witnessing the theater known as state politics, I've seen lots of Bush stump speeches, in 1994 and again in 1998. By 2000, the question had been asked and answered where Bush was concerned. I'm not quite sure what your problem is with "damn skippy". It was and is the answer I give to your question.

sirsholly -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 6:30:45 AM)
FR "damn skippy" is a phrase used in the same way "hell yes" is used. Personally i say "damn tootin'" all the time.

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 8:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: No, you didn't ask the question of Bush but I think it is relevant to the conversation. As far as "skippy" goes, we don't need to stoop to that level. But I can. Say the word and the game is on! The question is relevant. I quite agree. I had already posed this question about Bush long before 2000. Living in Texas and witnessing the theater known as state politics, I've seen lots of Bush stump speeches, in 1994 and again in 1998. By 2000, the question had been asked and answered where Bush was concerned. I'm not quite sure what your problem is with "damn skippy". It was and is the answer I give to your question. Wasn't familiar with the term. Up here them's fighting words pardner. So I guess I took it the wrong way.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 9:04:31 AM)
quote: Wasn't familiar with the term. Up here them's fighting words pardner. So I guess I took it the wrong way. No worries. On GWB, you and I pretty much agree. I don't talk about him much in these threads because he's basically old news anyway. 6 months and a wake up (give or take) and he's history. I'm far more concerned about who comes next.

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 9:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Wasn't familiar with the term. Up here them's fighting words pardner. So I guess I took it the wrong way. No worries. On GWB, you and I pretty much agree. I don't talk about him much in these threads because he's basically old news anyway. 6 months and a wake up (give or take) and he's history. I'm far more concerned about who comes next. Me too, and it seems to look increasingly bad either way.

Alumbrado -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 5:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I'm not pretending anything. I'm more than happy to see everyone do so. They are not "slams" though. They are legitimate questions of someone who is campaigning for the Presidency. And what is legitimate about questions that are either 1> faked, 2> spun, or 3> part of an intolerant agenda, such as the OP's? 1> Is it legitimate to ask McCain why he killed and ate all those babies? 2> Would it have been legitimate to ask Hillary how she could attend a church for years with a crazy looking pastor who says that God wants 'no more Jews', and admitted to violating the tenets of their church? 3> Would it have been legitimate to ask Kerry if he had any half Vietnamese children? If so, please link to where people are on record as asking those 'legitimate questions' when the candidate wasn't black. If not, what exactly do you use to define legitimate?

NumberSix -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 5:18:52 PM)
Well, you know Al, and you are old enough to remember this, (although alotta whippersnappers here are not)...... If you can keep it on the religious issue, no 'actual' issues need be discussed, which is gonna work for Obama, big time (against a conservative McCain) much as it worked for Kennedy against Nixon, Goldwater, Lodge, et al. He is getting very good at defending himself on this issue, and if it is the only issue that we have time for in this campaign....... he will wipe the face of the united states map with john mccains ass. But will we learn anything of substance? Ron

Alumbrado -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 5:56:40 PM)
McCain's one saving grace might have been his record as the 'anti-Republican Republican'... but apparently he didn't realize that when he signed back up with the devil, that it wasn't an agreement for the rest of the party to do things McCain's way... I suspect his ineffectual objections to such blatantly bigoted tactics will start to blur into one another. And there is a chance that all the people who would never vote for Obama because they 'twuly' supported Hillary or Ron Paul, etc., will look at the what the Republican strategists are recycling, and change their minds about not presenting a united front aghainst it.

NumberSix -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/20/2008 6:05:53 PM)
I hear ya, I see ya, but I gotta tell ya Al, I FUCKIN' DOUBT. Both these shitweasels have said they don't wanna see any 527 money working on their opponents. Good move McCain, you don't want to be affiliated with folks that don't want a nigger in the whitehouse, 'Hummon' Talmadge, Old Byrd, Rayburn, and as I understand it (though am not sure I believe it) Strom Thurmond are dead........... But I also note that movon.org is PACing it in, so it is a simple matter to hire a third party as the 527 so that guys like FHKY are confused, and I can't believe that an old slimy fuck like mcCain ain't got that in his playbook neither. SHIT WILL OOOZE, MARK MY WORDS, AL. LOL. Ron

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/21/2008 11:02:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I'm not pretending anything. I'm more than happy to see everyone do so. They are not "slams" though. They are legitimate questions of someone who is campaigning for the Presidency. And what is legitimate about questions that are either 1> faked, 2> spun, or 3> part of an intolerant agenda, such as the OP's? 1> Is it legitimate to ask McCain why he killed and ate all those babies? 2> Would it have been legitimate to ask Hillary how she could attend a church for years with a crazy looking pastor who says that God wants 'no more Jews', and admitted to violating the tenets of their church? 3> Would it have been legitimate to ask Kerry if he had any half Vietnamese children? If so, please link to where people are on record as asking those 'legitimate questions' when the candidate wasn't black. If not, what exactly do you use to define legitimate? This is just too silly to even take seriously. Have you been in a Rip Van Winkle slumber and suddenly awoke to find that politicians engage in politics? Was/is it legitimate to question McCain's ties to radical evangelicals? Was it legitimate to question how much influence Bill would have had in a Hillary White House? Was it legitimate to question Kerry on how much influence his Catholicism would have on his social policies? How is it not legitimate to question Obama's ties to a pastor that clearly has made some outrageous statements? Even putting politics aside, how can we as voters ignore these questions? I think you have to ask yourself why you see racism in legitimate criticisms unless you simply don't have any other argument to make in his defense.

Alumbrado -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 12:41:58 AM)
Because you know as well as I do that those 'outrageous statements' are just as faked, spun, or part of a racist agenda as the 3 'examples' I created.... So stop evading and answer the question... what is legitimate about criticizing black people who are calling for a stronger sense of community, and a desire for a better education, as the OP has done in his screed against black liberation theology? What is legitimate about claiming Wright was odious for reminding us that the government deliberately infected black people in the Tuskegee experiment? What is legitimate about invoking racist stereotypes about 'disturbing' black people who want to be equal, or apocryphal playings of the race card, or mentioning 'the order of things'. etc? Don't waste our time with the ad hom debate tricks, just answer the questions.

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 7:38:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Because you know as well as I do that those 'outrageous statements' are just as faked, spun, or part of a racist agenda as the 3 'examples' I created.... So stop evading and answer the question... what is legitimate about criticizing black people who are calling for a stronger sense of community, and a desire for a better education, as the OP has done in his screed against black liberation theology? What is legitimate about claiming Wright was odious for reminding us that the government deliberately infected black people in the Tuskegee experiment? What is legitimate about invoking racist stereotypes about 'disturbing' black people who want to be equal, or apocryphal playings of the race card, or mentioning 'the order of things'. etc? Don't waste our time with the ad hom debate tricks, just answer the questions. Look, as I said in an earlier post, I believe the OP invited charges of racism by the way he framed the question, but how it was posed does not make it a racist question. I don't know how you think Wright's statements are fake or spun. I watched the man on TV make those statements. The level of political correctness has just become ridiculous. Obama is bi-racial, so that means any criticism of him is racist? Again, as I've said before, I have the same concerns about McCain's recent cozying up to the religious right. What scares me most about this is how you seem to be part of this hero worship thing with Obama where he seemingly can do no wrong and anything said against him is racist. I seem to remember a similar thing after 9/11 where any criticism of Bush equated to lack of patriotism at best, and being a terrorist sympathizer at worst.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 8:15:37 AM)
and your point is? MOST BLACK BAPTIST CHURCHES have the same doctrine ...you should attend Sunday Services sometimes in a predominantly Black congregation. if you remember your history, we weren't allowed to attend services with Whites - separate but not very equal including Sunday church services. so what if the word "Black" appears in the doctrine 29 times - you have to take an account that the MAJORITY of the congregation (about 99.9999999999999999%) is ....omg - BLACK! i don't see the minority of white members complaining either. yes, it might "sound" racist to your ears however it's not to mine. oh btw - Obama doesn't have to explain a damn thing about TUCC

Alumbrado -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 11:54:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I don't know how you think Wright's statements are fake or spun. I watched the man on TV make those statements. The level of political correctness has just become ridiculous. Obama is bi-racial, so that means any criticism of him is racist? Again, as I've said before, I have the same concerns about McCain's recent cozying up to the religious right. What scares me most about this is how you seem to be part of this hero worship thing with Obama where he seemingly can do no wrong and anything said against him is racist. I seem to remember a similar thing after 9/11 where any criticism of Bush equated to lack of patriotism at best, and being a terrorist sympathizer at worst. So you watched Wright on TV make the Tuskegee statement? And what exactly was so odious about that? Are you claiming like the OP, that the deliberate infection of black people by the government never happened? Is that not 'spin' to you? Is that 'legitimate' to you? Or are you claiming that you watched Wright on TV originate the 'chickens come home to roost' statement right after 9/11, and you just didn't notice that he had somehow turned from a white ambassador into a black preacher? Nothing fake about that to you there either? And do you really think that it isn't racist to label black people who want peaceful methods of achieving equality as 'disturbing', while dragging out the specter of them upsetting 'the order of things'? And your ad hom debate trick in the last paragraph is exactly the sort of thing I expected you to do to continue dodging the questions you can't answer. How exactly again is pointing out proven lies 'worshipping' Obama? Riiiiiight.[8\|] You might want to get a grasp of the concept of reverence for facts.

TheHeretic -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 12:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl yes, it might "sound" racist to your ears however it's not to mine. So when a bunch of skinheads shout "white power!" that's all ok, since there aren't any minorities to be offended?

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 1:25:29 PM)
do you get offended if some black person screams - Black Power! Free Huey! Join the Panther Movement! ? does your skin crawl when African-American History month happens every February? i suppose that offends you greatly as much as hearing "N-word go home!" or "Take Your Monkey Ass back to Africa!" or "White Power is supreme!" to me

Alumbrado -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/22/2008 3:46:38 PM)
The fact that the OP and the other sophists keep speciously ignoring, is that white people were not held in literal whips and chains slavery by the black majority in this country, and that Jim Crow laws, denial of individual rights, lynchings, et al. flowed one way, not both. By attempting to portray minority desires to peacefully achieve full equality as 'disturbing' and minority expressions of self regard as equal to white racism, they are engaging in blatant logical fallacies... So for the record, a member of the majority who finds liberation theology to be 'disturbing', is engaging in unfounded behavior. A member of the minority who is suspicious of the 'order of things' rhetoric and motives of some members of the majority is engaging in survival behavior.

rulemylife -> RE: Why Obama still needs to explain Trinity Church affiliation (6/26/2008 12:48:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I don't know how you think Wright's statements are fake or spun. I watched the man on TV make those statements. The level of political correctness has just become ridiculous. Obama is bi-racial, so that means any criticism of him is racist? Again, as I've said before, I have the same concerns about McCain's recent cozying up to the religious right. What scares me most about this is how you seem to be part of this hero worship thing with Obama where he seemingly can do no wrong and anything said against him is racist. I seem to remember a similar thing after 9/11 where any criticism of Bush equated to lack of patriotism at best, and being a terrorist sympathizer at worst. So you watched Wright on TV make the Tuskegee statement? And what exactly was so odious about that? Are you claiming like the OP, that the deliberate infection of black people by the government never happened? Is that not 'spin' to you? Is that 'legitimate' to you? Or are you claiming that you watched Wright on TV originate the 'chickens come home to roost' statement right after 9/11, and you just didn't notice that he had somehow turned from a white ambassador into a black preacher? Nothing fake about that to you there either? And do you really think that it isn't racist to label black people who want peaceful methods of achieving equality as 'disturbing', while dragging out the specter of them upsetting 'the order of things'? And your ad hom debate trick in the last paragraph is exactly the sort of thing I expected you to do to continue dodging the questions you can't answer. How exactly again is pointing out proven lies 'worshipping' Obama? Riiiiiight.[8\|] You might want to get a grasp of the concept of reverence for facts. I can't answer questions to statements I did not make. I mean, you're just starting to crack me up here. You want me to defend things I did not say because you perceive I agree with someone who did. I never said Tuskegee did not happen nor did I ever try to defend it. As far as the "chickens come home to roost" statement, Jerry Falwell made a similar statement after 9/11 and was universally condemned for it. So because Rev. Wright is black he should be allowed to say the same without any criticism, because any criticism of a black public figure must surely be racism?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625