Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, and I didnt simply asked for anyone to prove a negative. I asked why did 9E happen? Showing us why would inherently prove Wright's claim wrong. Like I said earlier, somebody else who criticizes Wright needs to help out.
How is it obvious? So far, the facts available point to a pastor unable to talk about Christ or the bible, but only about white America and a congregation willing to listen
i.e. you don't like his style (which you don't have to) but you're preconception that the guy only gave clearly racist speeches has been busted but you're not gracious enough to admit it.
The historical fact remains, and must be judged in the after-time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise.
Winston S. Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy
Stating that "we never batted an eye" after dropping the atom bombs.
Those are that rantings of a nutcase. Plain and simple.
I bet Obama is wishing Eliot Spitzer had fought to remain in the governor's office. Or an asteroid was headed toward earth. Anything but more questions about his grandmother and Jeremiah Wright.
You're confusing me. In one post you offer Churchill's statement that there was unanimity, no questioning, not even a suggestion of anything other than dropping the bomb ... then in another post you say that to claim such things are the rantings of a nutcase.
Oldbetang, this many years after 9E and you dont know why it happened? If you dont know why, then how can Wright's claim be wrong?
Ummm, no, 'deserved' is an implication created to twist Wright's words. Do you even know what the phrase 'chickens coming home to roost' means?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY2NDViOGE0YjNhNjU3NTI0ZGE5MGQ3NmJhODE2Y2E=Two corollaries always follow the Obama victimology: moral equivalence and the
subtle suggestion that any who question his thesis of despair are themselves suspect.
So we hear of poor Baracks grandmothers private fears in the same breath as Wrights public hatred. Geraldine Ferraro is understood in the same context as Reverend Wright. The Reagan Coalition and talk radio are identical to Reverend Wright albeit without similar contexts for their own purported racism. Your own pastor, priest, or rabbi are analogous to Rev. Wright.And then, of course, your own motives are suspect if you question any of this sophistry.
For Michelle it is always they who raised new obstacles against this deprived Ivy League couple and their quest for the Presidency; for Barack it is those who play snippets, or the system of corporate culture that has made Wright the object of anger to similarly victimized poor white pawns. The message? Wrights motives for espousing hatred are complex and misunderstood; your motives for worrying about Obama and his Pastor are simple and suspect.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1081285...
Disagreeing with your pastor about transubstantiation is one thing. Debating whether government scientists are secretly trying to infect you with AIDS - that disagreement is a bit more profound.
At least it is for me.
Not Obama,...
Obama is right when he reminds us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But where he is cynically and shamefully wrong is insisting that we all have fallen as far as he has.
The reason many of us are horrified by the senators connection to the Rev. Wright is that most Americans cant imagine spending 20 minutes listening to his ignorant rantings, much less 20 years. Most of us would never even consider joining a church that preaches racial theology of any kind, much less the overt racism of the black values system at Obamas church.
And now were supposed to believe that this man is going to heal our souls?
http://thenaturaltruth.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-did-barack-obama-not-know-and-when.html"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." -- Sen. Obama, March 2008.
"I never heard comments like these." -- Sen. Obama, also in March 2008
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." -- Sen. Obama, ALSO in March 2008.
Is it really a sign of personal integrity that a politician is BAD at lying?
And I say "lying" in the plural form of the word. Remember, this is the same Sen. Obama whose campaign denied it ever had any meeting of any kind with Canadian officials, and certainly not to discuss NAFTA. When they were caught lying, Sen. Obama admitted a meeting, but denied they discussed NAFTA. When the memo of the meeting came out ("We discussed NAFTA"), the campaign simply stopped answering questions.
This is the same Sen. Obama who denied an inappropriate fiscal relationship with Tony Rezco, only to later admit that the notorious and allegedly criminal Chicago hack had directly intervened to help Sen. Obama buy a multi-million house.
Oh, and then there's this:
The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were
additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's [new] $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."
Sen. Obama is the candidate of change all right. Catch him in a lie, and he just changes his story.
This is part of the reason his campaign is in so much trouble. Democrats who want to elect a lying, ambitious political hack with no scruples or integrity don't need him. They already have Hillary
Nah, I was misunderstanding your words, sorry. I thought you were saying that the black supremacist undertones present in his recent controversial speech were present in every speech he gave and the church was primarily racist. If you're just saying that he focuses on race issues a lot then, although these two sermons are all I've seen, I've got a suspicion that you're right. In my experience churches have an unfortunate tendency to focus on one issue (the issue their pastor is particularly strong on or one that is particularly relevant to their community) and neglect others. Osteen does it with prosperity, Phelps does it with condemnation of homosexuality, my pastor does it too and I suspect yours has a bias towards a certain issue as well. Although I don't think it's healthy for a church I'm not going to judge him for it.I didn't say "clearly racist speeches." You are twisting my words. Stop it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?