Have the various bigotted posters here at this site turned you to the dark side? Perhaps it's possible to be around it without becoming it

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

How could you possible imply from what I said that anyone who criticizes Obama is a racist? I never said anything even remotely similar to that, I never intended to imply that, and I don't believe that.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

American politics are an absolute joke and we deserve what we get. We had seven years of the conservative, white, male, mainstream Christian leadership. And what did it reap us? A failed war in Iraq. An economic crisis. A broken educational system. And

So we're going to take a man who has some *excellent* ideas for solving these issues and addressing them. And we're going to disregard him because his pastor made UNDER TEN controversial, even call them racist, sermons over the course of TWO DECADES.

My question to people who claimed to "used to support" Obama. Why did you support him? Did you support him because you thought he would be a good President. Or did you just support him because you thought he'd be the kind of Black man who would pretend that racism doesn't exist? Were you hoping he'd make you feel better about your racially homogenous world by voting for him? Then fine. Your support isn't really necessary. I support Barack Obama because I think he has the best plans to bring the country out of the current funk that it is in. If he can't win on those merits. And if John McCain CAN win merely because he's white, old a man and doesn't cause people to have to do or think in any new ways, then the continuatoin of the Bush failures is what this country will reap and we will deserve it. This is. ridiculous.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Well, Fox will certainly keep this issue alive, but the people who watch them aren't going to vote for Obama anyway, so I suppose the question is how will the rest of the mainstream media handle it. McCain will certainly do his best to keep it front and center come the general election, assuming Obama hangs on that long, and Hilly will use it to see that he doesn't.

Frankly, I don't see how Obama can spin this thing away. He's already claimed he didn't know that Wright was preaching racial diatribes, which makes him either a dolt or a liar.

The smart thing to do would have been to claim that he slept through those 20 years of sermons, eh?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

If Obama is such a breath of fresh air, why is it that he didn't utter a peep about the massive corruption within the Daley administration and instead, kissed his ass and cheerfully accepted his endorsement?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

There's no way to reach a certain level in politics without SOME kind of sacrifice. The question is, compared to the other candidates who is the least bought and sold already? The answer of course is Barack Obama. Fundraising alone.

But Pogo? I didn't say he was perfect. I said that if THIS issue destroys him than America deserves 4 more years of failed politics and policies. Congrats!

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Two points; 1) The fact that Obama kept silent about the corruption in the Daley administration shows that he doesn't have the cojones to take on the status quo; 2) If Obama did have the cojones to take on the status quo, he'd never have made it to the US Senate.

So you see, he's nothing more than a feel-good candidate, at a time when we're desperately in need of genuine leadership.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Interesting that you are the one bringing race into your criticism of the current administration; in fact you emphasised the racial aspect of the current leadership. Do I detect a little racism from you CMS?

You are the one making references to failed "white" leadership; there were also many Jews in the mix I wonder if you will cite this element in your criticism?

I would love for his supporters to give me a rational reason why they support a junior senator with little proven experience on a federal level for the highest job in the land.

Barack's church certainly seems to support racial homogeny but you do not complain about his affiliation with said church; I wonder why?

And your support has nothing to do with the fact that he is black and will provide a non-white alternative to the failed "white" leadership over the past 7 years?

What qualifications does Obama have that warrants a nomination based on merit; John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are both more qualified to serve as president than is Obama.

Besides his race and his ability to smooth talk the masses what does he actually bring to the table when it comes to merit?

Merriam Webster's dictionary: Racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
So when you can fit my statements into that definition let me know.
I did not argue that the reason that Bush has failed is his whiteness. I also did not "emphasize" it, you put it in bold. I also pointed out that Bush is a mainstream Christian and a traditional conservative. I pointed all of those things about because they represent what nearly every President in American history has been demographically. Clearly, in the last seven years, these traits do not guarantee success in a Presidency, why not open our minds to considering other possibilities.
The membership of Obama's church is multi-racial. There are more white members nationwide than African American members. Can you explain this?
No it doesn't. My support for him is for two reasons. Both he and Clinton and the Democrats have a plan for the economy. The republicans do not. MORE importantly, Obama is the only candidate who has said essentially "government doesn't work unless YOU pay attention and hold people accountable." He wants Americans to wake up and stop letting the media tell them about whats going on and inform themselves. He wants pork barrel spending to be publically televised and justified on news networks. He wants corporate lobbysits to make their case to the American people in public forum, rather than behind closed doors to corrupt senators. He consistently talks about these issues as the way to transform politics to make it work better for American citizens.

But all you want to do is talk about the statements of a man who isn't running for President, because you can't really beat Obama on the substance.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Why did you even bring it up? Why did you evade my question? You did not provide a yes or no answer but offered a dictionary definition of the word.

Obama is a Christian as well so obviously that is not truly an issue in your view. Bush strikes me as more of a liberal than a conservative with big government and free spending so I doubt his alleged conservatism bothers you much. He strikes me as an open borders liberal straight from the bowels of socialism.

I am left with race; something you made a point to illustrate for the masses.

You really do not believe I am falling for this jive talk do you?

Can I explain something you have yet to prove? I am too smart for that game but maybe you would care to explain how the "Black Value System" is anything but racial nationalist in nature?

Edwards and Hillary never advocated responsible government?

Does his record reflect his words? For example he is opponent of special interests? How come he pandered to AIPAC (Israeli Lobby) and pushed the George Bush view of Iran as a threat to his audience when American intelligence said Iran stopped nuclear weapon development in 2003?

And this is a fallacious strawman; you cannot explain why Obama preaches diversity to the masses while refusing to disassociate himself from a racial nationalist church because there is no logical explanation that would make Obama look good. Instead of addressing this fact Obama's worshipers can only create and attack the silly strawman that he is being attacked because his pastor made some off-colour comments! No, Barack is a member of a racial nationalist church while he preaches tolerance and diversity for the rest of us!

This alone proves that he does not live up to his own stated ideology which is damning against him and his supporters. The fact is Obama has no substance; he is unproven and unseasoned; we can only go on his words which is a negative for him when he illustrates that his beliefs very likely do not match his words.

That sounds reasonable, but it is not a fair comparison. It is one thing to deal with anonymous racists on an internet forum. However, when you share communion with a racist every Sunday, when you have that same racist marry you and your angry bitter wife, when that racist baptizes your children, when that same racist becomes your campaign's spiritual adviser and an inspiration for your writings, well, that is a far different situation.

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

If its "racist" to point out the fact that every President has been white then I guess that makes me racist? Problem is that Merriam-Webster doesn't agree. I do tend to listen to them a bit more when it comes to the definition of words. Call me crazy.
What Bush demonstrates is that "big government" in and of itself isn't liberal. Perhaps its time to stop saying "no big government" and instead demanding "effective" government. The problem with people is that we are too lazy to make our governmental officials accountable. We want to be apathetic and so when someone comes along who demands a little more of us as citizens we get defensive and assume "its all talk." It IS all talk if you continue to accept apathy as your only possible response to the government.
Oy. OK. "Racial nationalism" is a term that refers to people who seek to create a seperate nation based on race. Obama is running for president of the U.S. and loves this country, so not sure why "racial nationalism" is part of the discussion.

Trinity United is a branch of the United Church of Christ, which is a VASTLY majority white denomination. How can I "prove" that. Can you "prove" that Catholics tend to be mostly white in America? I don't understand what you want me to prove here. Edwards did and I was originally an Edwards supporter, but he never made it a huge part of his campaign. Clinton hasn't at all.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

I asked you a question that you are still evading.

Your definition is severely limited to say the least!

Which is an unsettling thought considering that he belongs to a church that pledges it's loyalty to Africa first and foremost; from the "about us" section of the TUCC website:

"We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."

This is not racial nationalism? From the "Black Value System" of the TUCC:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

We are discussing TUCC the branch not the overall mothership. I doubt that the overall UCC mission statement includes pledging allegiance to black leaders only...

The media now realizes that the senator will win the presidency, that were not paying attention to the movement of change, until it have taken hold,once the plan of action went into effect, movements are usually unstoppable. so the resisters of change usually do the same old, same old, try to behead the leader, eventhough the movement transcends the leader.

They believe when the leader is beheaded the diarrhea of change will stop, it must be stopped prior to an action plan implementation, once that take root it will continue to hemmorrhage.

Remember Jesus is the first change agent, and they used one of his diciples to stop him, and others denied him. Yet, there gospels in the new testement is what many of use follow today.

Have faith, the Senator is annointed and cannot be stopped until his journey is fulfilled, until he stands on the mountain top.

We will live the dream, fear not. Hannity must dig two holes, the one he wants the senator to fall in, and the one he will fall in. Due to his fear of change.

One must remember that America was build to be governed by the amount of melanin in one's blood, and the senata at present have too much, hence the resistance of change for this new president, there is fear that the white house may have to be repainted. That was the error back then.

Obama's answer to the latest phase of the smear campaign:

Rev. Wright’s version of speech is typical among ethnic groups who have suffered at the hands of others. Listen to what Armenians have to say about the Turks, read what Native Americans had to say about European settlers. The saddest part of this story is how many people have been shocked by Rev. Wright’s comments—as if this is the first time they have ever heard anyone who had the gall to say such things.

It may help to point out that Martin Luther King was once vilified by the same sector of the American electorate that is now denouncing Obama for his ties to Rev. Wright. In an interview on the Jim Lehrer News Hour on Jan 18, 2000, Michael Eric Dyson, the author of a book on MLK titled “I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King” argued that we have done MLK a disservice by “sanitizing” his image in our history books. Here’s the final comment from the interview:

“King’s admirers want to protect King from the assertion that he was an unpatriotic American. And in the minds of many Americans, if you are a radical democrat or a socialist, you are automatically a Communist. And if you are a Communist, then therefore you are an anti- American person and a person who is not a patriot. But nothing is further from the truth. But King's friends, in attempting to shield him, have really left him more vulnerable to rebuff, and have also tried to really reproduce this image of King as this perfect icon of American patriotism by neglecting his radical viewpoints, his embrace of democratic socialism, his insistence that maybe race is a big thing, but class is even a huger dimension and a huger obstacle to be overcome for black people and other poor people to realize economic equality in America. So I think his friends have done him a great disservice as well.”

What we need to say to the hate speechers from all sides: We shall overcome.