Front Office Football Central
Page 18 of 31 « First < 891011121314151617 18 19202122232425262728 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=62530)

Glengoyne 03-21-2008 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1688370)
... the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

Done? I was hearing about this on NPR on my way home last night. In fact they quit merely saying that Wright had made inflamatory statements, and finally started playing the sound bytes.

This isn't over. If NPR has gotten off of the fence on that side of the issue. I don't think it is off of the radar today.

JonInMiddleGA 03-21-2008 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup (Post 1688624)
Rarely, if ever, (I can't think of any, but I'm only waffling because I don't know for sure), has a politician's name ever come up at a church function I have attended, let alone in the preacher's sermon.

+1

And I'm even more confident about the "never" part.

larrymcg421 03-21-2008 10:54 AM
Breaking news from CNN: Hillary Clinton's passport file was breached in 2007.

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1688653)
I agree here. If you look at a vast majority of "anti-Bush" leaks, they come from the state department. Of all the areas within the administration to see a republican-based spying effort, the state department would be the last place I would look.

Well, we DID see it back in 1992, but that was a Republican political appointee as opposed to contract employees like we have here.

I know they're out there, but I have yet to meet a Republican civil servant or bureaucrat since I moved here. And considering I run in largely conservative social circles, that's kinda surprising.

Cringer 03-21-2008 11:06 AM
Not going to church makes sure you are not taken down by your own preacher. :D

st.cronin 03-21-2008 11:10 AM
Michigan apparently won't be re-doing their primary, either.

Grammaticus 03-21-2008 11:13 AM
Now they are reporting that Mcain's passport file was breached too.

st.cronin 03-21-2008 11:18 AM
Clearly, agents of Ralph Nader are behind this.

Vegas Vic 03-21-2008 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1688641)
I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.

All three presidential candidates had their passport files breached. The conspiracy theorists need to move on to something else.

Passacaglia 03-21-2008 11:23 AM
So I'm assuming it's just some curious folks passing the time. When I was a freshman at Michigan I worked for the Admissions office, and I looked up information on just about everyone I knew -- so I can understand.

Cringer 03-21-2008 11:24 AM
Maybe it's Ron Paul and Nader teaming up to form a super secret alliance. It happens on Big Brother.

rkmsuf 03-21-2008 11:26 AM
Maybe this is from the brilliant mind of Aston Kutcher and they are getting punked.

Ksyrup 03-21-2008 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1688697)
All three presidential candidates had their passport files breached. The conspiracy theorists need to move on to something else.

No, I just read a post elsewhere that the McCain thing was either made up or purposely done to make it LOOK like it wasn't targeting the Dems. :rolleyes:

Arles 03-21-2008 11:41 AM
My money's on a secret coalition between Mitt Romney and John Edwards to retake the presidency as the real "dream ticket". ;)

Young Drachma 03-21-2008 01:38 PM
Roland Martin makes some good points here.

miked 03-21-2008 01:43 PM
I think he also posted somewhere the entire 9/11 speech given by the Pastor just to show how out of context everything was, and how the speech was basically about violence breeding violence (our violence towards Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese-nuke, etc). But, some people want to make it a straw man and bring the focus away from a never ending war and sagging economy. Not that any of the candidates has really gone in to detail on anything...

cartman 03-21-2008 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 1688852)
I think he also posted somewhere the entire 9/11 speech given by the Pastor just to show how out of context everything was, and how the speech was basically about violence breeding violence (our violence towards Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese-nuke, etc). But, some people want to make it a straw man and bring the focus away from a never ending war and sagging economy. Not that any of the candidates has really gone in to detail on anything...

This is a YouTube link to the full sermon (about 10 minutes long):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Ksyrup 03-21-2008 02:06 PM
The 9/11 speech doesn't contain any of the comments I've been reading about or specifically objected to. It doesn't even have the GD America comment, which is what I thought started this whole thing. How does this speech become the focal point on Wright?

rkmsuf 03-21-2008 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup (Post 1688898)
The 9/11 speech doesn't contain any of the comments I've been reading about or specifically objected to. It doesn't even have the GD America comment, which is what I thought started this whole thing. How does this speech become the focal point on Wright?

does he talk about the aids stuff?

Ksyrup 03-21-2008 02:20 PM
The only AIDS-related comment I recall from that speech was something about how little money the government is spending on AIDS research, education, and healthcare, yet they just paid out $40B to rebuild NY.

Galaril 03-21-2008 02:32 PM
Well, Richardson's endorsement of Obama is helpful but maybe not as much in PA as Edwards would.

Young Drachma 03-21-2008 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1688927)
Well, Richardson's endorsement of Obama is helpful but maybe not as much in PA as Edwards would.

I sorta see it at this point to being likened to a situation where you sign a player so your opponent can't. The rumor on the street is Edwards to Clinton, but conventional wisdom was Richardson to Clinton due to the ties. Maybe he's waiting until after the primary there? Who knows what he's doing. Maybe he's changing his chameleon outfit again.

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 03:40 PM
Interesting story on the black liberation theology I mentioned earlier. Frankly, I'm glad to see a newspaper talk about this rather than comb through more sermons from Rev. Wright or Rev. Moss. It'll be interesting to see how many of the McClatchy papers run this and how many other press entities use it as a springboard for stories of their own.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/31079.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church.

Obama's speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn't believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there.

He and other Chicagoans have praised Trinity's role as a melting pot that brings together blacks and some whites from all levels of wealth and education, boasts a joyous and energetic choir, and is deeply involved in community work, such as helping the homeless, the incarcerated and those touched by HIV and AIDS.

But Trinity has a history. Its affiliation with the United Church of Christ makes it part of a liberal, mostly white denomination that was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.

Trinity goes further, embracing black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces.

In that and related doctrines, the church and some of its guiding thinkers at times have been socially ahead of the curve and other times outside the mainstream of American religious and political thought.

For example, the 8,000-member congregation embraces the idea that Jesus was black. It's historically supported left-wing social and foreign policies, from South Africa to Latin America to the Middle East.

Wright, who hasn't been giving interviews since the controversy broke, told conservative TV talk-show host Sean Hannity last year that Trinity's black value system also had parallels to the liberation theology of laypeople in Nicaragua three decades ago. There, liberation theology became associated with Marxist revolution and the Sandinistas, and split the Roman Catholic Church.

White America today embraces Nelson Mandela, and he won the Nobel peace prize. But in the early 1980s, when the U.S. government considered Mandela's anti-Apartheid African National Congress a terrorist organization because of its support from communists and use of violence, Trinity became one of the first U.S. churches to support the group.

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology. Trinity officials also didn't respond to requests.

Obama's Illinois state and U.S. Senate voting records and his speeches suggest that, if elected president, he'd take a liberal but mainstream line and seek partisan bridge-building rather than agitation as his style.

It's possible that Obama joined Trinity as much because it gave him credibility as a newcomer to south side Chicago's black community as for its particular theological teachings.

"As a community organizer, would people join Trinity? Yes!" said Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago's divinity school. (He said he'd contributed $25 to Obama's campaign.)

However, "someone who wanted to run for public office would think twice about intentionally using Trinity as a leverage," Hopkins said. "When it's Election Day, all the politicians come to Trinity. But not every day."

Cone, the Union professor, said he didn't know Obama personally. He supports his candidacy and considers the senator's worldview as set out in books and speeches "certainly not alien to black theology.

"But it doesn't have as much of a radical edge to it," Cone said of Obama's view. "He couldn't succeed with my message. He speaks less of the hurt and the pain of African-American history. I think his own life has been less of that."

But Cone stands by his message, and sometimes Obama echoes it.

Consider this passage: "Hope is the expectation of that which is not. It is the belief that the impossible is possible, the 'not yet' is coming in history."

Those words sound as if they were pulled from Obama's latest campaign speech. Instead, they're from a memoir Cone wrote in the 1980s. In it, Cone said blacks shouldn't limit their hope to what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for. Then he posited a thought that voters are unlikely to hear from Obama:

"Together, black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society."

Asked about that, Cone said: "I'm not a Marxist. . . . I'm a theologian, and I want to change society. I was searching for my way forward. I want a society in which people have the distribution of wealth, but I don't know how quite to do that institutionally."

He said that the idea of a black Jesus didn't mean Jesus necessarily looked like a black African, but it did rule out Jesus being a white European. More importantly, he said it meant that Jesus "made a solidarity with the (oppressed) people of the land."

Black liberation theology doesn't hold that Africans or black Americans are superior to others. Cone said its concern for the oppressed often allied it with conventional liberal goals.

He argued early on the imperative of supporting women's rights and gay rights. He's said that environmentalism and fighting racism should go hand in hand, as minorities and Third World nations are affected disproportionately by pollution and the environmental costs of capitalism. Civil rights, black liberation and helping the oppressed all share the same values, he said.

"When the Berlin Wall came down, they were saying, 'We shall overcome.' In Tiananmen Square, they were saying, 'We shall overcome.' "

Liberation theology's stance on the rights of Palestinians likewise is informed by its emphasis on seeing God's mission through the lens of oppressed people.

"Black theological liberation is not anti-Israel. It's never been that Zionism is racism," theologian Hopkins said. "It's more for a truly two-state solution."

Still, Hopkins believes, "black theology liberation is to the left of Obama."

On Middle East policy, Obama is strongly pro-Israel. He's rejected an argument voiced by Wright that U.S. support of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians helped fuel the 9-11 attacks.

sterlingice 03-21-2008 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1688694)
Clearly, agents of Ralph Nader are behind this.

The dastards!

SI

Noop 03-21-2008 04:37 PM


Means nothing I know but I thought it was worth posting.

cartman 03-21-2008 05:11 PM
Is this the thread where we mention that Reagan seriously consulted with astrologers?

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1689001)
Is this the thread where we mention that Reagan seriously consulted with astrologers?

Only if we can mention that at the time that was seen as awfully controversial, right?

cartman 03-21-2008 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1689019)
Only if we can mention that at the time that was seen as awfully controversial, right?

and then ultimately overlooked, right?

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 06:11 PM
It didn't become a controversy until 1988. Were you expecting a third term?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...880516,00.html

Besides which, astrology, while kooky, doesn't claim that the Libra is keeping the Scorpio down, nor does it proclaim that rich white Aries are creating deadly viruses and addictive drugs to give to the Virgos. But I believe the basic point of "I don't find this to be a big deal" vs. "I do find this to be a big deal" has kind of been beaten into the ground. I don't think you can rationally make the statement that "most people don't believe this is a big deal". Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

cartman 03-21-2008 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1689025)
Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

Like the polls from today that showed a marginal tick up for Obama? Not the free-fall that was expected.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Ga...Obamas-45.aspx

Vinatieri for Prez 03-21-2008 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1689025)
I don't think you can rationally make the statement that "most people don't believe this is a big deal". Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

I think you can rationalize this because "most people" in the U.S. right now are paying attention to politics in March, and couldn't care less what's going on in the primaries.

It will be all but forgotten or explained away by November.

Young Drachma 03-21-2008 06:40 PM
I haven't heard this discussed anywhere, so I figured to post it anyway.

Politico talks about The Clinton Myth.

Quote:
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 07:25 PM
Cartman,

I was actually thinking about the Survey USA polls when I wrote that, but hell, even Gallup notes that Obama's support has fallen from 50% a week ago to a low of 42% (and now back up to 45%). Yes, Obama's taken a hit in his public support no matter how you slice it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez (Post 1689033)
I think you can rationalize this because "most people" in the U.S. right now are paying attention to politics in March, and couldn't care less what's going on in the primaries.

It will be all but forgotten or explained away by November.

I won't waste any energy trying to persuade you otherwise, but I think you're wrong on both counts.

Buccaneer 03-21-2008 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1688840)
Roland Martin makes some good points here.

Roland Martin always makes some good point (he's by far my favorite columnist).

Cringer 03-21-2008 08:57 PM
I found this interesting....

Cringer 03-21-2008 09:06 PM
One more, which helps me understand "God Damn America" much better. Nice to see the comments in context.....

The key line is at the end, but the build up makes you understand it, especially the last couple minutes.

Young Drachma 03-21-2008 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cringer (Post 1689093)
I found this interesting....

Story


Quote:
Meet the man who inspired Reverend Jeremiah Wright's now famous tirade about America's foreign policy inciting the terrorist attacks of September 11.

His name is Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter -- hardly the black-rage image with which Wright has been stigmatized.

In fact, when Wright took the pulpit to give his post-9/11 address -- which has since become boiled down to a five second sound bite about "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon.

"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."

"Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."

And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."

Watch the video (the relevant material starts around the 3:00 mark):

So it seems that while Wright did believe American held some responsibility for 9/11, his views, which have been described as radically outside the political mainstream, were actually influenced by a career foreign policy official.

Who is Peck? The ambassador, who has offered controversial criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank but also warned against the Iraq War, was lecturing on a cruise ship and was unavailable for comment. But officials at Peck's former organization, the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit group that advocates reducing Israel's influence on U.S. Middle East policy, offered descriptions of the man.

"Peck is very outspoken," said Eugene Bird, who now heads CNI. "He is also very good at making phrases that have a resonance with the American people. When he came off of that Fox News, a few days later he said they would never invite me back again."

And what, exactly, did Peck say in that Fox News interview that inspired Wright's words?

Here are some quotes from an appearance the Ambassador made on the network on October 11, 2001, which may or may not have been the segment Wright was referring to. On the show, Peck said he thought it was illogical to tie Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that while the then-Iraqi leader had "some very sound and logical reasons not to like [the United States]," he and Osama bin Laden had no other ties.

From there, Peck went on to ascribe motives for what prompted the 9/11 attacks. "Stopping the economic embargo and bombings of Iraq," he said, "things to which Osama bin Laden has alluded as the kinds of things he doesn't like. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things that he sees us as having been doing, the same way Saddam Hussein feels. So from that perspective, they have a commonality of interests. But they also have a deeply divergent view of the role of Islam in government, which would be a problem."

Buccaneer 03-21-2008 09:24 PM
Ah, a Jimmy Carter connection. Probably says it all.

Young Drachma 03-21-2008 09:25 PM
President of the United Church of Christ at Trinity UCC. Comments might surprise you.

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 09:31 PM
Ward Churchill also used the "chickens are coming home to roost" line too, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "pseudo-Native American rage".

Peck is also a "Truther" (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...1026093059633), so I'm not sure that he adds any legitimacy to Rev. Wright.

It seems to me the tone of that piece is to try to say that since in this case, Wright quoted a white guy, he can't possibly be a racist. But Wright himself took pains to point out that Peck is white. Who the hell cares what color his skin is? This is what I mean about EVERY action or comment having to be seen through the prism of race.

CamEdwards 03-21-2008 09:37 PM
And no, the comments don't surprise me. UCC is a socially liberal church and has been for years. I'm sure the church leadership doesn't see anything particularly controversial about Rev. Wright's comments, nor would they see a need to step in and tell the church what to say. To do so in this case would probably be seen as abhorrent in the context of liberation theology.

stevew 03-21-2008 09:42 PM
I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.

JPhillips 03-21-2008 10:55 PM
Cam: Since nobody else will answer I'll ask you. What's fundamentally different between saying America's chickens are coming home to roost and blaming 9/11 on our sins and immorality? That's a position held by hundreds of thousands or millions of largely Republican voters.

On church leadership, I think UCC operates roughly the same as The Disciples of Christ. I know we have a lot of connections and I think "management" works the same way. In Disciples churches the idea is that the congregation develops the church. We have wildly liberal and more conservative churches. My church in Silver Spring was multi-racial and politically diverse. One of the big downtown Disciples churches was almost all black and more liberal. If you go farther towards Gaithersburg they're almost all white.

If the UCC works the same way it has much less to do with liberal politics and much more in a fundamental belief in the autonomy of individual churches.

Cringer 03-21-2008 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1689119)
And no, the comments don't surprise me. UCC is a socially liberal church and has been for years. I'm sure the church leadership doesn't see anything particularly controversial about Rev. Wright's comments, nor would they see a need to step in and tell the church what to say. To do so in this case would probably be seen as abhorrent in the context of liberation theology.

In an honest attempt to understand your position on this I am asking these questions. Hopefully it comes out sounding like I mean it, non-confrontational or even biased one way or the other.....

Do you believe the whole speech as it is is still controversial and borderline hate speech? If yes, then what is it that you feel is so wrong about it, that it is in a church? That it is talking about (in an angry tone?) the wrongs of our past to present governments as seen by him (and many others in this country)?

st.cronin 03-22-2008 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 1689120)
I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.

By re-votes, I guess you're talking about Michigan and Florida, but I thought they would be expected to break Clinton's way with a re-vote.

flere-imsaho 03-22-2008 08:35 AM
Quote:
In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."

McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee's views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.

Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it "so far off-base." He claims, "Our church is not hard against the gay people. Our church teaches what the bible teaches, that it is not a righteous lifestyle. But of course we must love even sinners."

Stephen Colbert:

Quote:
But the real problem here is not whether the Senator attended church, or whether he was aware of his reverend’s views, but how he handled an inflammatory spiritual leader during a presidential campaign. If you want to know how to do it right, ask John McCain. He also has a long-standing and complicated relationship with controversial preachers: Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Now I’m not comparing Falwell and Robertson to Jeremiah Wright, after all, the Sunday after September 11th, Rev. Wright said this:

Wright: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Chickens? Roost? That implies we have the terrorists cooped up in tiny cages for years and we didn’t do that until after 9/11. By comparison, Falwell and Robertson delivered a touching sermon three days after September 11th:

Fallwell: “I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them, who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”

Robertson: “I totally concur”

It is even more inspiring than their sermon about the two sets of footprints on the beach. The second set belongs to a gay dude sneaking up on you. Run, Jesus! But like the out of control Rev. Wright, Falwell and Robertson were also condemned by a presidential candidate. During John McCain’s 2000 campaign, he called them both “agents of intolerance.” But before this campaign, McCain did what was necessary to win. Here’s what he said about them this time:

McCain: I believe that the “Christian Right “ has a major role to play in the Republican Party.”

Russert: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

McCain: No, I don’t.

He embraced them. In fact, in 2006, McCain gave the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University. I’m telling you folks, the man is such a maverick, he is even independent from his own true feelings! McCain was able to cozy up to preachers who say that gays and Satanists are the same thing and it’s a non-issue. I think that Obama’s mistake is that he did it backwards. If he had denounced Rev. Wright years ago, then quietly embraced him for this election, he could have spent the time he wasted on yesterday’s speech focusing on the issues that really matter.

Good stuff. As you were.

Arles 03-22-2008 10:33 AM
got a chuckle out of this:



And, for a little balance on both dem candidates:

Dutch 03-22-2008 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1689308)
Good stuff. As you were.

Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

miked 03-22-2008 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1689417)
Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter? Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president. People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent). I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson.

Young Drachma 03-22-2008 05:56 PM
Why Richardson's endorsement matters

flere-imsaho 03-22-2008 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1689417)
Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

Arles 03-22-2008 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1689655)
Good article and I agree. We may all look back on this move as the one that pushed Obama into the nomination from a public relations standpoint. Unless the Clintons get Edwards, I don't see how they can recoup the momentum to get the nomination.

Dutch 03-23-2008 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1689686)
I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

That figures. On the flip-side, I find McCain's "relationship" with Falwell to be miniscule and irrelevant compared to Obama's relationship to his pastor of 20 years and I believe that Obama will tell you everything and anything and is willing to let words shroud his true principles. So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

Dutch 03-23-2008 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 1689654)
Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter?

Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.

Quote:
Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president.

The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.

Quote:
People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent).

Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.

Quote:
I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson.

People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

albionmoonlight 03-23-2008 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1689879)
The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

I agree.

JPhillips 03-23-2008 08:49 AM
Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

Dutch 03-23-2008 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1689898)
Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

So we should take Wright into consideration for this or not? Help me out, here.

JPhillips 03-23-2008 09:35 AM
I don't really care, but if Wright, who has comparatively little influence, is important shouldn't Moon, who donates millions, has his own conservatively aligned media empire, gives money to the North Koreans, and is connected to virtually every conservative politician in the U.S., be just as important?

miked 03-23-2008 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1689879)
Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.



The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.



Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.



People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

Firstly, I'm not an Obamamanic, I even voted Hillary in this poll. I've stopped caring after all those debates. But I don't see anything that suggests Wright has a major influence on policy, in fact it would seem as though Obama started distancing himself before that even came out. People who support Hillary/McCain will just add this to something they can chase, and these little annoying spats are just hurting politics. I mean, CNN felt the need yesterday to make an article about how the CEO of the contractor who was caught snooping at files had donated to Obama's campaign. Buried in the article was the fact that the CEO of the other contractor was a Hillary supporter. But the headline was "CEO of state dept. breach an Obama donor!!!!!!" I saw the comments on this article and it was nothing but Hillary/McCain supporters talking about how this CEO obviously instructed his worker to go through the files to distract from the current "scandal" (despite the fact the first breach took place 2+ months ago).

My point is, people like to make mountains of out molehills, especially this early in the process. If you think Obama is somehow going to bring some white-hatred thing to the office, or consult Wright before making his decisions (we all know that won't happen now), then you are seriously partisan-delusional. Do I have to remind people who GWB selected to be his medical advisor/FDA guy? Who was he consulting on that?

Young Drachma 03-23-2008 10:45 AM
Pat Buchanan wonders where the gratitude is:

Link
Quote:
By Patrick J. Buchanan

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Buccaneer 03-23-2008 10:53 AM
So now it's time for everyone to turn partisan hacks? *sigh*

Arles 03-23-2008 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1689898)
But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.
We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

Young Drachma 03-23-2008 11:31 AM
His rhetoric (Buchanan) has really gotten ugly in recent years. I mean, he's just regurgitating talking points from the nationalist right at this point and so, so paying him any mind at this point is really silly. The main difference of course, is that he gets a forum on national television as an opinion commentator.

Of course, Jesse Jackson had a show on CNN for a while. So...I guess whatever works. But this stuff isn't so much vitriol as it does repeat the oft-cited and falsely noted myth that social service programs in this country were devised by altruism intended to help colored folks out of their bleak situations.

It would almost be comedic if there weren't millions of folks who truly believe this to be the case. But I guess will believe what they'll believe. I thought it was actually surprisingly caustic from him, so that's why I posted it.

Young Drachma 03-23-2008 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1689957)
We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

You folks are overstating the influence and the personal relationship of Rev. Wright and Obama. The media spins "spiritual adviser" to mean something beyond what the true intent was. Even if you claim he's playing politics on this one, to me, it's akin to a close family member that you don't want coming out and saying something crazy, because he's old and can be prone to say crazy thing.

I think Barack looked up to Rev. Wright in terms of his Christianity and given that last year, the debate was whether the Democrats could convert some of the "moral majority" to their side, I think he was trying to carve out a way to let folks know that he had a spiritual backbone.

Rev. Wright isn't going to torpedo this candidacy. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise. Other things might do it, but this isn't the thing. Not in a week here you all swore it'd kill his campaign and he ended up regaining the lead in the polls and getting a major superdelegate to come to his side of the aisle.

He should've been dead in the water and instead, he took the worst week of his campaign and effectively neutralized it by using those oft-cited 'words' and gave a blunt speech on a conversation that most folks would rather gloss over or completely ignore with a simply stroke of a magic wand.

I think the general election will be a very stark contrast in conversations. The problem for the Dems is all of this "John McCain is an American hero" talk that they keep spewing before they decide to attack him. That's going to stick with folks who don't know Obama well and who already know all they need to about Hillary.

But this entire race was unpredictable in January, so to act as if it's all played now in March is very premature.

cartman 03-23-2008 11:44 AM
Considering the overall US budget just passed the $1 trillion mark for the first time in 1987, it is pretty safe to say his estimate of $40 trillion spent on social programs is way off. In any event, he seems to be overlooking the fact that white Americans make up about 60% of those on welfare. Hardly a program set up to exclusively help the black community, as Buchanan seems to be intimating.

JPhillips 03-23-2008 11:44 AM
Arles: You're way off limiting Moon to a donor who went to a banquet. He's kept in the background, but from his early relationship with Reagan and company and the founding of the Washington Times he's been one of the most important sources for cash in the entire conservative movement. That cash has paid off by giving Moon the legitimacy he's so eagerly desired.

Bush I has received millions in speaking fees from Moon and has praised his vision and principles. Neil Bush has also spoken in praise of Moon and done other work for some of Moon's shadow companies. Bush II has appointed a few Moonies to prominent positions in the government. During Bush's first term millions in abstinence only education funds were given to a Moon front group.

The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.

In effect everything you worry that Wright could do, Moon has done.

In the end I don't really believe that Moon is anything for these politicians but an ATM. I don't really worry about Bush declaring Moon the dictator of the US, just as I don't believe Obama is going to throw whitey down a well. The point is that unless you're willing to condemn Moon and his political allies as vigorously as you do Wright and Obama, you really are just taking an opportunity to damage a political opponent with no higher principles than personal destruction.

Buccaneer 03-23-2008 11:58 AM
Quote:
The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.

Except that is was spearheaded by an Illinois Democrat?

The thing that makes what Wright said and his alledged influence is the fear of violence, as we have seen in the past and what I remembered growing up seeing the race riots personally. It's one thing to be influenced by money and its evils, but it is another thing to want to purposely do harm to another group. You know it won't take much to have race clashes in certain parts of the country. That is a fear contemplated if Hillary steals the nomination. That is why any kind of race-baiting, hatemongering should be categorically shutdown and not allow to fester.

JPhillips 03-23-2008 12:11 PM
Moon wants to convert or kill anyone who doesn't believe he's the Messiah. He's actively supporting the North Koreans. In the seventies thousands of young American were brainwashed by Moonies to the point where deprogramming them was relatively prominent.

I stand by my belief that if you aren't willing to apply the same scrutiny to people connected with Moon that you are to people connected Wright you're engaging in nothing more than an opportunistic political attack. If the concern is influence by people who are so radical as to be potentially dangerous how can you not see that connections to Moon are at least equally troublesome?

As to the Crowning ceremony, I don't think it's clear who setup the event as it may have been Curt Wheldon, but it's true that some Democrats were also in attendance. Over the past few years Moon has been pouring a lot of money into primarily African-American churches and a few politicians. In the grand scheme of things his influence in the black community is minimal, but his Tear Down the Cross initiative has been primarily aimed at black churches.

And for the record, I absolutely have problems with politicians of all stripes connected to a man as dangerous as Moon.

Arles 03-23-2008 12:35 PM
Honestly, I'd feel a lot better about Wright if it was shown he donated a ton of money to Obama. Then, atleast, we could write this whole thing off as fundraising. But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

JPhillips 03-23-2008 12:37 PM
Arles: Thanks for proving my point.

Arles 03-23-2008 12:41 PM
Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

Young Drachma 03-23-2008 12:41 PM
Obama's Talk Fuels Easter Sermons

A snippet:
Quote:
Some ministers said their congregants were focused not on white racism, but on Mr. Wright’s remarks. The Rev. Dean Snyder, pastor of Foundry United Methodist church, which was the Clintons’ home church during President Bill Clinton’s tenure, said some of his congregants were aghast at Mr. Wright’s remarks.

During staff meetings this week at his church, Mr. Snyder said he noticed the rising awareness among some African-Americans of white Americans, he said, “who don’t understand the history of black people in this country and the role of the black church as a prophetic voice, and that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society.”

The Rev. Kent Millard of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis said he felt Mr. Obama had explained the reality of the relationship between a pastor and his congregants.

“Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is member of our congregation, and I would hope he would never be held accountable for everything I have said in the last 15 years,” said Dr. Millard, who is white. “Why is there any assumption that a person in church is expected to agree with everything a pastor says?”

Some black ministers said that their sermons might address how the reputation of a man many of them revere was reduced to sound bites. They pointed out that sermons in black churches covered a long and circuitous path from crisis to resolution, and it was unfair to judge the entire message on one or two sentences.

“I may not use his exact language,” said the Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, pastor of Victory Church in Stone Mountain, Ga., “but I can tell you that the basic thrust of much of my preaching resonates with Dr. Wright. I don’t think I’m necessarily trying to preach people into anger, but I am trying to help people become conscious, become aware, to realize our power to make change in society.”

Buccaneer 03-23-2008 12:55 PM
Quote:
that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society

...depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on.

cartman 03-23-2008 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1690008)
Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

Any chance it might be the message in the other hundreds of hours of sermons Wright has given outside of the snippets that have been over focused on? No, that can't be it, can it? Obama must have had the patience of Job to sit through years of "boring" religious sermons to get to the "juicy" parts he just knew would be taken out of context and plastered all over the place.

flere-imsaho 03-23-2008 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1689876)
So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

Wait, you've just figured this out? :eek:

:p

Young Drachma 03-23-2008 06:00 PM
Rev. Otis Moss took over recently as senior pastor and was in an Obama ad a while back, explaining what their church is all about. Well before there was all of this hullabaloo.




Here's the Easter Sunday sermon from today at Trinty UCC.
Pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJPV1VMRqo)
Pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEcnR3woihU)
Pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCfUxKoDGQ)
Pt. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XonscQyCkHI)
Pt. 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsywwUk3TRU)

CamEdwards 03-23-2008 06:08 PM
I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

Buccaneer 03-23-2008 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1690266)
I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

That would be cool, if it wasn't for the gun thing. :)

JPhillips 03-23-2008 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1690266)
I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

I think if you could expand on that a bit I'd love to hear it. I've generally been frustrated by the idea that faith is of utmost importance for our politicians, but the tenets of that faith are generally considered out of bounds for discussion. I'm bothered by the idea that the media is so accepting of an undefined faith when it's the specific beliefs within that faith that determine it's role on the individual. There are real differences between faiths, be they Black Liberation, Muslim, Mormon, Prosperity Gospel, etc. If faith is going to be an issue at all it should be as an examination of the tenets of that faith. IMO once a person says their faith is important it demands the question, what do you believe?

I would warn you though that me listening probably won't make up for all the other listeners that want a more black and white discussion.

Vinatieri for Prez 03-24-2008 01:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1690005)
But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.

Arles 03-24-2008 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez (Post 1690405)
Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.
I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama. And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information:
1. His words
2. His actions in political life
3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with

If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president.

flere-imsaho 03-24-2008 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1690266)
Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

Now that's a show I might actually listen to. Even though you're a right-wing gun nut. :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1690494)
I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama.

But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care, and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.

Quote:
And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

And, you know, maybe you can't, anyway. But maybe it's worth trying. But Obama at least doesn't want to take the easy way out.

Mizzou B-ball fan 03-24-2008 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690502)
Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690502)
If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing. They SHOULD be throwing some of these ideas 'under the bus' because they make little sense and don't represent the beliefs and needs of most U.S. citizens. There's a reason their views don't gain any traction in most government policy. It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

Arles 03-24-2008 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690502)
But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care, and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.
I think this is a real good point. And, IMO, it's closer to the truth than Obama being some kind of closet anti-american monster. All that said, I do think it's fair for Obama to have his feet to the fire for a few weeks while people make up their minds on it.

For a parallel, imagine a scenerio where it came out that McCain's closest economic advisor for the past 20 years was very anti-tax cut and in favor of bigger government spending and higher taxes to build jobs/economy. Now, it very well could be that McCain simply liked the guy as a person and didn't always agree with his tax policy, but I would fully expect much of the media to hammer him hard on inconsistencies between his stump speaches (keeping the Bush tax cut) and the views of his close advisor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690502)
It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.
I would applaud the first candidate that did that. For "unity", I don't expect a person to get the Black Panthers and KKK to sing Kumbaya. It's OK to make people with fringe beliefs on either side less relevant without feeling like you are not "uniting the whole contry".

ISiddiqui 03-24-2008 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690507)
That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

And when he talks about his general policies, you KNOW there will be significant pushback from the other side on them. True he isn't for "universal" health care, but according to his campaign, he's going to dramatically increase spending on health. He will try to pull back from Iraq in a relatively substantial way. He will be backing programs that will increase spending... at least if he follows what he's been saying on the campaign. He will try to revisit NAFTA. When that happens, you aren't going to have the other side think everyone should sit down and compromise. Instead, they'll do what they normally do and fight to the last man. Then what happens to "unity"?

albionmoonlight 03-24-2008 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690507)
That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

flere-imsaho 03-24-2008 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690507)
That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening.

There are a lot of specifics here. Seriously.

Quote:
The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing.

That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future.

This really isn't such a far out concept. In my work as a project manager I do this all the time. One of the key problems in managing teams (especially teams over which you have no managerial control - which is true for most PMs) is when you have opposing people (or camps) who are diametrically opposed to each other and won't work together.

The way I bring these groups back into line is finding out the common demoniator upon which they agree, and use this as a way to bring them back to the table. Starting with this as the goal, we can then articulate a workable compromise that then allows the entire team to achieve whatever the objective of the project is.

That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

Quote:
It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

Mizzou B-ball fan 03-24-2008 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 1690518)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

Mizzou B-ball fan 03-24-2008 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690530)
That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

I'm a manager in an IT group, so I'm certainly aware of those dynamics and you are correct in that regard. That works fine in a smaller setting. A group of 300M+ holds no comparison to that setting and a leader that thinks otherwise is profoundly in error if they treat the two scenarios as similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690530)
If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct? :)

albionmoonlight 03-24-2008 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690533)
Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690533)
With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

Sure. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. The man has plans, and those plans differ significantly from those of George W. Bush (re-elected, as people seem to forget, by a signficant popular vote margin in 2004). Lots and lots and lots of Americans will object to a lot of what Obama wants to do. All of the leftists who expect him to be the Regan of the left and win an electoral college/popular vote landslide are, in my very humble opinion, wrong.

st.cronin 03-24-2008 10:47 AM
At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

flere-imsaho 03-24-2008 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690533)
Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama's website
Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1690538)
If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct? :)

Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's. ;)

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

albionmoonlight 03-24-2008 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 1690547)
You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

That reads harsher than I intended it. Indeed, I didn't intend for it to be harsh at all. Just one of those "agree to disagree" points.

flere-imsaho 03-24-2008 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1690548)
At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

st.cronin 03-24-2008 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690555)
That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

flere-imsaho 03-24-2008 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1690558)
The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

Mizzou B-ball fan 03-24-2008 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690552)
To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:

Sure, that's a fine policy. But where does it differ from what any of the other candidates will do? My guess is that both candidates on either side would argue for similar mandates. My point being that it's not a bad idea, but it's likely very similar to reform that either candidate will likely have to pass. I would note that I checked the McCain site and I don't see any specific mention of any mortgage policies. I'll have to look a bit more and see if he's got something on record in that regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690552)
Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's. ;)

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

Gathering 300M people on common ground is a non-starter IMO. I'm all for uniting people, but it isn't going to happen from a realistic standpoint. I'd say that he should be honest and say that he's going to do his best to unite everyone, but political protocol would say that would be an open door for the opposition candidate to say, 'See, he's not going to help everyone!'. Politics are a beautiful thing. :)

JPhillips 03-24-2008 11:27 AM
Something will be done for FL and MI before the convention, likely either a 50/50 split or cutting the delegates in half. If the Supers break as I expect after the April and May primaries the FL and MI delegations may be seated as is because it won't matter.

I think the FL/MI issue won't matter much because if it gets to a floor fight the party likely won't recover by November regardless of what happened to those delegates.

CamEdwards 03-24-2008 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1690575)
"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...143263249/1001

Quote:
Philadelphia's Democratic leaders say they'll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party's nominee in the general election.



Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don't care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.



"If you can't deal with it, then you've got a problem," said Mrs. Campbell, who supports Mr. Obama and heads an alliance of black ward leaders.



"That's what's on the minds of most Philadelphians," she said.



Democratic ward leader Ralph Wynder, who is supporting Mr. Obama, said the candidates should address the pressing issues, but conceded that backing Philadelphia's push for tougher gun laws would be "political suicide."



"You are probably going to be damaged goods in the state," Mr. Wynder said.



"There are just some questions you can't win with an answer. I guess that's why politicians double-talk so much," he said.

To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee.

So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job.

Greyroofoo 03-24-2008 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1690548)
At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 PM.
Page 18 of 31 « First < 891011121314151617 18 19202122232425262728 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.