The Next President?

clivex said:
Yet again, i ask what your opinion would be of a white candidate who hitched himself to a church with such views

Now answer that question...which i know you wont and cant
Click to expand...

I would ask myself the following:

Is the white candidate's pastor speaking for himself, or for his church.

If his pastor was speaking for himself, then I would have no problem with the white candidate.

If it was his church's view, and the candidate believed in such views, and such views were not appropriate for a candidate who wished to represent all of the people, I would have grave reservations about the candidate.

Happy?
 
If his pastor was speaking for himself, then I would have no problem with the white candidate.
Click to expand...

No good. hopeless frankly

its not just the pastors view as you know. It was the written view of the church itself
 
clivex said:
No good. hopeless frankly

its not just the pastors view as you know. It was the written view of the church itself
Click to expand...

Clivex, you just don't get it, do you.

You yourself have stated that you don't think Obama is a black seperatist.

This renders any concerns you may have had about his previous affiliation with Reverend Wright, and the Trinity Church irrelevant - because the only concerns you have about the Reverend Wroght and his church are that they advocate black seperacy (frankly, I think that point is entirely unproven anyway).

You seem unable to grasp the issue of relevancy.

Obama's association with Wright/Trinity is completely irrelevant in the context of his run for President.
 
"Previous affiliation" ? Are you joking? He was a lot closer than that as you well know

No. You dont get it and yet again will not address the point that if this had been a white candidate attending a white seperatist church for 20 years, with a written set of "values" that are clearly racist, then you would not be claiming that we should all "move on"
This renders any concerns you may have had about his previous affiliation with Reverend Wright, and the Trinity Church irrelevant
Click to expand...


Is this some sort of joke? You think its good judgement to have been so closely associated (not "affiliated") with such a preacher?

The hypocrisy and lazy thinking of much of the left never fails to amaze




user_offline.gif
 
Anyway, what was McCain doing pulling that window lickers face? Talk about an horrific campaign photo. Bit like Nixons 5 o clock shadow

Obama is now spending in strongly republican states. This is turning out to be a very one sided campaign
 
Oh........God!.......this is getting tedious.

WTF does "a lot closer than that" mean, clivex? What is your definition?

You trot this banal nonsense out routinely, without ever giving any indication as to what you mean by it, let alone why it should be considered dangerous. You just trot it out parrot-fashion, and sit back like you have scored some definitive debating point.

Are you suggesting Obama was hatching Black Panther plots with Reverend Wright, whilst a member of Trinity Church?

Are you suggesting that the two of them are engaged in a nefarious White House bid, that will result in a black seperatist agenda becoming evident only after the vote?

In similar vein, you witter on endlessly about how attendance at Trinity Church shows 'poor judgement' on the part of Obama.

I ask again "In what way does it show poor judgement?". Yet again, you trot this line out, without ever giving any reason as to why it's poor judgement.

Your assertion that Trinity Church is racist is utterly without foundation. Clearly you think the words "unashamedly black" are racist, in which case I suggest you look-up the word "unashamedly" for it's dictionary definition, rather than the Early Learning Centre one you appear to have applied. In fact - fuck it - I'll do it for you:

unashamed: not embarrased by, not disconcerted by.

I'm unashamedly white. Am I a racist?

It's becoming ever apparent that you have no grasp whatsoever of nuance, which goes a long way to explaining both your admiration of Melanie Philips, and your inability to see the Wright issue for what it is - a complete and total non-event in the context of this election.

I already provided an answer to your question about the imaginary white candidate. Whether your ignoring this was wilful, only you can know.
 
Last edited:
You have absolutely no idea do you? Your just waffling away


How do you think a black attendee of a church which preached "white" this and "white" that followed by paranoid rambling about how blacks "deliberately" spread disease would feel? And then picked up church literature praising a "leader" who described Hitler as "a great man"


You and the otehr pathetic hand wringing Guardian readers would be screaming blue murder if a white church had the same written agenda. Are you unable to read the churches constitution (or whatever it is)? Are you seriously telling me that it is inclusive and is not determining by the colour of skin?

You have not provided an answer about a white candidate. Dont try and bluff your way out of that

Wright was his "spiritual leader". He was VERY close to him for 2o years. He has freely admitted that. Ayers was an "affiliation". Wright was not


I ask again "In what way does it show poor judgement?". Yet again, you trot this line out, without ever giving any reason as to why it's poor judgement.
Click to expand...


Is this serious? He attends a racially exclusive church stuffed with preachers dishing out paranoid and race hate garbage for 20 years. A church that has links to Farrakhan FFS

It drove him onto the back foot and compelled him to make the speech of his life (which was good) . One slip at that point and his whole campaign could have been derailed terminally.

To blunder into that situation is very very poor judgement. hes going to come through it because of the erratic beahviour of his opponent and the economic crisis which has hieghtened the public distaste for the GOP and their stupid tax cuts for the rich (amongst other things). Hes campaigned well too, but withs lightly different circumstances and a stronger opponent, this could have crucified him
 
Last edited:
So ...and the pathetic left never seem to be able to answer this...would be the reaction to a white candidate who was a member of an aryan church say that espoused the following


1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the white Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the white 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 white Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all white leadership who espouse and embrace the white Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the white Value System
Click to expand...

You have never come close to answering this. And nor will you because you know what the answer is
 
I'm reasonably certain that if the Republicans thought they could amke this association stick, they would. My best guess is that they don't think they can, or at least the only people with whom it would resonate are already convicted Republican voters anyway. Painting Obama as a black supremacist isn't going to be easy in all honesty, and might alienate swing voters who would see it as the shameless stunt it is. Remember how the Tories mistakenly tried to paint Tony Bliar as a red hot socialist who couldn't be trusted etc? It back-fired as clearly it couldn't be made to stick, as many thing Bliar might have been, a socialist wasn't one. Ultimately it made the campaign look desperate and a tad silly. I'd have thought Rezko will be more interesting, especially as his verdict is due to be the 'October surprise' in terms of time frame
 
How is it racist for a black church serving a black congregation in a black community to extol the virtues of God, of local community, of family, of education, of being the best you can be, of hard work, self-respect, self-discipline, and a rejection of materialism where it separates you from where you came?

You can not just replace the word "white" with "black", not if you actually understand the history of black America, of slavery, of Jim Crow, of the Civil Rights movement, of the years of endemic racism, and the effect of it to this very day on the black community there.

Anyone who has read or listened to anything Obama has written or said on the subject knows full well how important the black church is in black communities in the US, how it's often the only community support structure that black people have in a country that has too often ignored them, but that progress is being made towards a future where the average person from a minority group will get the same opportunities across the board as the average white person; the same education, the same security and the same potential earning power as the average white person.

It's not about black power, it's about black empowerment.

Speaking of which, and this goes to your narrow left/right worldview, there's an organisation called Republicans for Black Empowerment. Here's what they want to achieve:

The goal of Republicans for Black Empowerment is to tap the personal potential of Black Americans. To that end, RBE seeks to provoke greater critical thinking, increase the number of black Republican candidates and to empower individuals and groups to take leadership roles within their community and the GOP by executing a program aligned with four long-term goals:

1. Provide a national network allowing black conservatives to discover one another and facilitate dialogue between individuals and groups with shared political views.

2. Establish grassroots networks of black GOP activists by encouraging and assisting in the formation of state and local black Republican organizations.

3. Provide public and online forums for conservatives to exchange ideas and help raise awareness of alternative political solutions through educational activities within the black community.

4. Support political candidates and public policies aligned with improving the lives of blacks, by generally emphasizing reduced government dependency, personal savings and investment, educational reform, economic empowerment, and equal opportunity.
Click to expand...

By your definition that's racist too, because if you replaced all those instances of the word 'black' with 'white' it would look awfully suspicious.
 
clivex said:
You have never come close to answering this. And nor will you because you know what the answer is
Click to expand...

The reason I've ignored it, is because the simplistic replacement of "Black" with "White" is not any kind of comparison. Your problem is that, again, the nuances and subtleties are completely lost on you.

The Trinity Church 'convenant' isn't an expression of black seperatism - it's a product of it's time, and an expression of black solidarity and aspiration, as it existed in early 1970's Chicago.

If you think the Trinity Church covenant is racist, then you must think the film "Shaft", the music of Motown, and the sporting of fucked-up afro's, racist also.

Which would make you a muppet.

You've already hinted elsewhere that you are in PR, which means youyou doubtless have the capacity to shamelessly argue that powdered glass is a great baby-food, and that black is actually white (pardon the pun). This rather makes debating with you pointless in the extreme, so I shall cease and desist from now on.

Feel free to chalk my walking away from this as you having won the battle.

Edit: Gareth has yet again eloquently made my point in a better way than I could have myself. Except he didn't use the word "muppet", which I think was an oversight.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to chalk my walking away from this as you having won the battle.
Click to expand...


Not at all., but

The reason I've ignored it, is because the simplistic replacement of "Black" with "White" is not any kind of comparison
Click to expand...

That is an dismal cop out. No wonder you are walking away. I will answer it for you. You woudl no doubt scream that the white version is RACIST but the same words applied to blacks are "understandable". Double standards. No good

I do not agree with any organisation in any party which is racially exclusive. I would happily define that as racist in any context. Why an example of a republican one is supposed to counter that view i have no idea.
 
I'm reasonably certain that if the Republicans thought they could amke this association stick
Click to expand...

the key issue is how some stuff sticks to certain candidates and other stuff doesnt

Look at Kerry with the boat thing and Gary Hart with the supposed "affair". Lies largely and yet voters swallowed them. Maybe because their minds were already made up and they wanted a reason

Yet you could have thrown the virtually proven and very serious vote rigging allegation at JFK and people would still have looked the other way.

They didnt with Watergate though. Which was frankly nothing comparted to JFK's corruption

And so it goes on....

Reublicans sensed this wouldnt stick (so far) because not much will,. The elecorate has decided to dump the GOP and you get the feeling that they would rather vote in a bollard than some multi millionaire "tax cuts for rich" war mongerer. theyve had enough

Aliied to that Obama has presented himself well enough to convince that hes a viable alternative.
 
I sense the polls are tightening up a little bit, or at least Obama's surge has plateaued. It remains to be seen what effect the debate will have but I doubt it'll change much. I expect the polls to slowly tighten before election day. Obama's got huge advantages in the electoral college, currently, though.
 
Well we are 49 pages in now folks, over a long running subject that has caused much debate. It's coming to its final furlong or so, and I do feel it's important every who wants to, should vent spleen (one way or t'other).

I realise that recent postings have got the temperature up a wee bit, but hey, we are talking about a few individuals who can give and take it and given that, I'm more than happy to encourage dispute (sorry I meant debate), and none of them are 'complainers', so if you disagree with any contribution - then lay in (within reason).

The post is meant as an open invite to any of you who've followed it, to chip in and say your part. Please have a go, and don't worry in so far as the person with most egg on their face is me.:)
 
Warbler said:
I'm more than happy to encourage dispute (sorry I meant debate), and none of them are 'complainers', so if you disagree with any contribution - then lay in (within reason).
Click to expand...

No problemo.

Clivex is a doss cnut.

:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daft though it sounds Monsieur Hopper there are words we don't allow. I've amended your post accordingly, although I don't believe its lost anything in translation, (which does of course beg an obvious question) I'm sure Clive will take it in due spirit:)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top