Originally Posted By mawnck >>John McCain's campaign manager says he is reconsidering using Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue during the election's closing weeks. In an appearance on conservative Hugh Hewitt's radio program, Davis said that circumstances had changed since John McCain initially and unilaterally took Obama's former pastor off the table. The Arizona Republican, Davis argued, had been jilted by the remarks of Rep. John Lewis, who compared recent GOP crowds to segregationist George Wallace's rallies. And, as such, the campaign was going to "rethink" what was in and out of political bounds. "Look, John McCain has told us a long time ago before this campaign ever got started, back in May, I think, that from his perspective, he was not going to have his campaign actively involved in using Jeremiah Wright as a wedge in this campaign," he said late last week. "Now since then, I must say, when Congressman Lewis calls John McCain and Sarah Palin and his entire group of supporters, fifty million people strong around this country, that we're all racists and we should be compared to George Wallace and the kind of horrible segregation and evil and horrible politics that was played at that time, you know, that you've got to rethink all these things. And so I think we're in the process of looking at how we're going to close this campaign. We've got 19 days, and we're taking serious all these issues."<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/rick-davis-were-rethinkin_n_136173.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...173.html</a> (As you can see, this, too, is all the Dems' fault.)
Originally Posted By dshyates Go for it. Been there done that. I guess McCain is going to throw every shred of respectibility out the window. Fine with me. McCain of 2000= maverick McCain of 2008= repugnant and desperate. McCain is starting to behave like a wounded animal.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<(As you can see, this, too, is all the Dems' fault.)>> Well of course. It usually is. I see this as being a far more legitimate concern than the Ayers/terrorist stuff. If Obama attended a church for over 20 years where the minister frequently spewed hatred for whites and hatred for America from the pulpit, I think that is worth questioning. Especially when Obama previously referred to Wright repeatedly as his spiritual advisor. If the situation had been reversed and McCain had attended a church for 20 years where hatred for Blacks was spewed from the pulpit; don’t you think Democrats would be nailing him on that big time? We all know that such information would have forced McCain out of the race completely. Not that there is a double standard or anything. The question is why did he continue his membership in that church so long? There are several plausible answers. 1) He agreed with what Wright was saying. 2) He slept through most services and had no idea what Wright was saying. 3) He knew fully well what Wright was saying but continued to attend because in his district it was the politically expedient thing to do. I suspect that the proper answer is #3 which means Obama's a whore just like every other politician out there. But I doubt Obama really supports Wright's point of view. Would be interesting to know for sure though.
Originally Posted By mawnck One more plausible answer: 4) The minister in question did NOT "frequently spew hatred for whites and hatred for America from the pulpit."
Originally Posted By dshyates RT, all the clips of Rev. Wright controversial comments come from one sermon. Specifically the sermon on the first Sunday after 9/11, and Obama was not in attendance.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've read multiple sources indicating that Wright used the concept of Black Liberation Theology in guiding the congregation at Trinity United Church. You've just gotta love a theology that declares black hatred of whites is justifiable and does not constitute racism. <<Black Theology Quotes "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!" [Black Theology and Black Power, Pages 139-140]. (Referring to Jews as not being the only 'chosen people'.) [2] "It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it...But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is 'the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.' Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?...Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free." [Black Theology and Black Power, Pages 14-16] [3] "We cannot solve ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first. Our choices are not the same as his. Being Christians does not mean following 'in his steps.'" [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 139] [4] "Therefore, simply to say that Jesus did not use violence is no evidence relevant to the condition of black people as they decide on what to do about white oppression." [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 140] [5]>> Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...theology</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I agree with mawnck's #4 here. I've heard things in church with which I don't agree, but it's not like they are "spewed" every week. McCain has sold his soul. Sad.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney I find it funny that all the things McCain made completely clear was 'off the table' in March are now back on it lol. At this point, I'm waiting for the man to mention Obama's drug history and maybe allude to something more sinister in the future. Who knows at this point?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, last March Obama was saying that he would limit his campaign expenditures and accept public financing. That single change has probably hurt McCain worse than anything else. He has been unexpectedly placed in the position of trying to win an election while spending 50% of what his opponent is spending. I believe this has lead to desperation which in turn has lead to dumb-ass decisions on McCain's part. That does not justify the decisions, but perhaps puts them in context.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, says black liberation theology often portrays Jesus as a brown-skinned revolutionary. He cites the words of Mary in the Magnificat — also known as the "Song of Mary" — in which she says God intends to bring down the mighty and raise the lowly. Hopkins also notes that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says the path to heaven is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners. And the central text for black liberation theology can be found in Chapter 4 of Luke's gospel, where Jesus outlines the purpose of his ministry. "Jesus says my mission is to eradicate poverty and to bring about freedom and liberation for the oppressed," Hopkins says. "And most Christian pastors in America skip over that part of the book." Hopkins attends Trinity United Church of Christ, where Rev. Wright just retired as pastor. In the now-famous sermon from 2003, Wright said black people's troubles are a result of racism that still exists in America, crying out, "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people." According to Hopkins, that was theological wordplay — because the word "damn" is straight out of the Bible and has a specific meaning in the original Hebrew. "It means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation," Hopkins says. << <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512189" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s...88512189</a> It is, BTW, the largest church in the United Church of Christ, a mostly white mainline denomination. <a href="http://www.ucc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ucc.org/</a> According to Wikipedia ... >>(Trinity's) early history coincided with the American civil rights movement, subsequent death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the turmoil that entered the movement after his death. During that tumultuous period, a great influx of radical Black Muslim groups had begun to headquarter in Chicago, and Trinty sought to recontextualize Christianity through black liberation theology so as to win back Blacks who were being taught by radical black Islamic leaders that it was impossible to be both Black and Christian. Trinity is most known today for its social programs on behalf of the disadvantaged, both nationally and internationally, although in its earliest days such outreach did not even figure into its mission.<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ,_Chicago" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..._Chicago</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't care how you put lipstick on the pig, Black Liberation Theology is racist. Now you can try to defend the racism by saying that it is necessary to counter-act the white racism that exists in America. But in the end, racism is racism. If McCain had attended a church teaching a similar theology with the races reversed, he would have been forced to resign his candidacy. You know that and I know that. I'm not saying that Obama should resign over this. I personally don't think it is that big a deal. I still go with my answer #3 which just makes him a typical politician. But I don't think the questions on this are out of bounds. They certainly would not be if the situation were reversed.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Black Liberation Theology is racist. ... If McCain had attended a church teaching a similar theology with the races reversed, he would have been forced to resign his candidacy.<< It's a United Church of Christ, RT. Not a Black Liberation Whatchamajigger. >>To recontextualize the Christian message for the new context and time in which Wright perceived the church itself in, Wright, the author claims, anticipated that he would need to co-opt the positive elements of the Black Power message, while rejecting its philosophies of separation and black superiority<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...f_Christ</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IZ1LRC0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IZ1LRC0</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney That didn't work, it's supposed to be this one. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60k9IZ1LRC0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IZ1LRC0</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan LOL, yeah, no negative stuff from McCain's side at all. The Obama Funhouse gets no scarier nor surprising no matter how many times the same stuff gets flung out there. But since that's really all McCain's got, there you go. Big problems to face as we go forward, but McCain fixates on preachers and Ayers and so forth. All nonsense side chatter, but he makes it the centerpiece of his campaign. A campaign that is 100% negative now as the days wind down and the polls favor Obama. And sadly, I think the worst is yet to come from the McCain campaign.
Originally Posted By dshyates <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27113844/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/13/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...mber/13/</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, last March Obama was saying that he would limit his campaign expenditures and accept public financing. That single change has probably hurt McCain worse than anything else. He has been unexpectedly placed in the position of trying to win an election while spending 50% of what his opponent is spending.*** a) that's not accurate and b) McCain didn't HAVE to go with the public financing either. He'd be up the creek either way though, because there was simply no way he would EVER be able to raise close to what Obama has. So yes, he was always at a disadvantage but no it didn't really have anything to do with the public financing thing. Sounds good as an excuse though.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Wait a minute, I thought Obama DID promise to limit public finance for the election? It seems pretty shady to me when he opted out of it. Still, that's a loooong stretch between promising how you are going to raise money for a campaign vs getting low and dirty CLEARLY to get votes by trying to turn your opponent into satan.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Wait a minute, I thought Obama DID promise to limit public finance for the election? It seems pretty shady to me when he opted out of it.*** Nope. That's the GOP distortion version. <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VwooZkkBGB8" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...oZkkBGB8</a> "On Nov. 27th of last year Obama was one of only two candidates to bother to answer the questionnaire of the Midwest Democracy Network. Question 1B reads (you can find it online) "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?". Then you have to check either the "yes" box or the "no" box, and then explain. Obama checked "yes" and then gave an extremely long and kind of self-serving answer about his history of advocating public finances which concluded 'if I am the Democratic nominee, I will AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE AN AGREEMENT with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly funded general election'." (emphasis mine) So, there you have it. He never made any promises, he simply said he would pursue an agreement. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't..we'll never know (and we certainly can't trust McCain's word on it, now can we).
Originally Posted By Mr X Google "Midwest Democracy Network Obama questionnaire" and click the very first link to view the document. You can also see the answers of Edwards, as if it mattered.
