Cult Tipster is an Obama Delegate

[M.Dancer]

I honestly don't care about Obama's attendance at Wright's church; I would consider that his 'private life' had he not given Wright a role in his campaign.

How did you feel about Bush when he went to Bob Jones?

[Guest American Woman]

How did you feel about Bush when he went to Bob Jones?

What did he go to Bob Jones for?

[M.Dancer]

What did he go to Bob Jones for?

politics

[Guest American Woman]

politics

So it wasn't in his 'private life' then. But to tell the truth, I didn't care one way or the other; I wasn't a Bush fan to begin with, didn't even consider supporting him.

[Guest American Woman]

Obama said today on NBC, he doesn't agree with the Reverend and its plain to see now they don't see eye to eye in their ideas....

Obama should have known they didn't see eye to eye in their ideas before he gave Wright a position in his campaign.

[M.Dancer]

So it wasn't in his 'private life' then. But to tell the truth, I didn't care one way or the other; I wasn't a Bush fan to begin with, didn't even consider supporting him.

That is moot. The point is why should one get a free ride for his associations with extremists while the other doesn't.

In my mind Bush should not have gone to Jones and Obama should not be a memeber of a church that is divisive.

[Guest American Woman]

That is moot. The point is why should one get a free ride for his associations with extremists while the other doesn't.

In my mind Bush should not have gone to Jones and Obama should not be a memeber of a church that is divisive.

No it isn't moot. There's a huge difference between "polical" actions and "private" life.

[bush_cheney2004]

No it isn't moot. There's a huge difference between "polical" actions and "private" life.

Further, either are not necessarily liabilities unless managed in such a naive way. Vetting this kind of baggage is not only political due diligence, it is just common sense. Being associated with Jones or Falwell (Moral Majority) has been a lot less damaging, and actually strengthens the conservative voter base. Rev. Wright cannot deliver any more than was originally the Democrat's to claim all along, but he sure as hell can alienate other voting demographics essential to prevail in the general election.

Edited May 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

No it isn't moot. There's a huge difference between "polical" actions and "private" life.

either or is an endorsement. Which is scarier? Someone who uses a nutbar for political ends or someone whose association with a nutbar is voluntary and personal?

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: No it isn't moot. There's a huge difference between "polical" actions and "private" life.

either or is an endorsement. Which is scarier? Someone who uses a nutbar for political ends or someone whose association with a nutbar is voluntary and personal?

I don't agree with everything my minister/church has said. I don't agree with everything everyone in my personal life thinks and/or does. I have friends who are Democrats and friends who are Republicans. But if I were running for office, I would make sure those who I gave an appointment to shared my political views/ideals and I have the same expectations of those who are in politics. That's the difference between "polical life" and "private life."

[M.Dancer]

That's the difference between "polical life" and "private life."

In politics there is no difference and that's why it is moot.

Let me ask....If I a candidate had a memebership in the klan, would that make me a favourable candidate?

Now, what if I only had close friends and spirtual advisors who were Klan members....would that look good in the news.....or just as bad as being a member?

[bush_cheney2004]

In politics there is no difference and that's why it is moot.

Let me ask....If I a candidate had a memebership in the klan, would that make me a favourable candidate?

Now, what if I only had close friends and spirtual advisors who were Klan members....would that look good in the news.....or just as bad as being a member?

Maybe yes...maybe no...see Senator Robert Byrd....longest serving US senator and Democrat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#P...he_Ku_Klux_Klan

[Guest American Woman]

In politics there is no difference and that's why it is moot.

Let me ask....If I a candidate had a memebership in the klan, would that make me a favourable candidate?

Now, what if I only had close friends and spirtual advisors who were Klan members....would that look good in the news.....or just as bad as being a member?

The Klan is very political; churches are private. In fact, if churches got political, they would lose their tax exempt status. So again, political life is one thing, private life another. As I already pointed out, every member of a congregation isn't going to agree with every sermon, with every religious belief that their minister has, with everything their minister says/believes.

I believe in the separation of church and state, so if Obama needed "spiritual guidance" in making decisions as POTUS, then I'd be critical of that, same as I am when Bush mixes religion and politics. But if it's just their private life, and it has no political bearing whatsoever, then I don't care.

[M.Dancer]

The Klan is very political; churches are private. In fact, if churches got political, they would lose their tax exempt status.

Are you seriously trying to say that churches aren't political?

What do you call campaign for life (anti abortion)?

What about the Moral Majority?

[Guest American Woman]

Are you seriously trying to say that churches aren't political?

What do you call campaign for life (anti abortion)?

What about the Moral Majority?

Not all churches are anti-abortion; and by that I mean not all denominations. Churches et al do not stand for anti-abortion. However, churches are just buildings that house the congregation, and some congregation members are anti-abortion, some are pro-choice. Some churches have organizations within the church that stand for one thing or another, and individuals can donate politically, but the church cannot. The church cannot lobby. I could belong to a church where the minister was anti-abortion and I would still be pro-choice. On the other hand, the KKK pretty much stands for one thing and it was formed to make political 'reform.' That's its purpose. It's not bound by the same political restrictions churches are.

So Obama could belong to a church and have his private beliefs as long as he kept his politics and religion separate; and furthermore, he could belong to a church and not believe everything the minister believes. Do you dispute that? However, one wouldn't belong to the KKK and not believe what the KKK stands for. Do you dispute that?

[M.Dancer]

Not all churches are anti-abortion; and by that I mean not all denominations. Churches et al do not stand for anti-abortion. However, churches are just buildings that house the congregation, and some congregation members are anti-abortion, some are pro-choice. Some churches have organizations within the church that stand for one thing or another, and individuals can donate politically, but the church cannot. The church cannot lobby. I could belong to a church where the minister was anti-abortion and I would still be pro-choice. On the other hand, the KKK pretty much stands for one thing and it was formed to make political 'reform.' That's its purpose. It's not bound by the same political restrictions churches are.

So Obama could belong to a church and have his private beliefs as long as he kept his politics and religion separate; and furthermore, he could belong to a church and not believe everything the minister believes. Do you dispute that? However, one wouldn't belong to the KKK and not believe what the KKK stands for. Do you dispute that?

This is nit picking....whether they can donate doesn't preclude a church being political, they can lobby (and they do) you can donate to the churches lobby...theycan support candidates, and they do.....

Someone who belongs to a churchy and not believe what the church does is to say theleast, confused.

[Guest American Woman]

Someone who belongs to a churchy and not believe what the church does is to say theleast, confused.

So you think every church member has to believe everything the minister believes, everything the church 'officially' believes, or they are "confused?" Rather that seeing it as confusion, I see it as critical thinking, ie: not being sheep; and as such, I have no doubt that "Catholics for Free Choice," for example, are not confused in the least. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the KKK has an 'Equal Rights for Blacks' subgroup.

I repeat, people can be members of a church and not believe everything the minister believes.

Edited May 5, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I repeat, people can be members of a church and not believe everything the minister believes.

And if the minister believes that AIDs is a US gov't conspiracy to kill blacks...do you sit and go hmmmm or do you look elsehwhere??

[M.Dancer]

So you think every church member has to believe everything the minister believes, everything the church 'officially' believes, or they are "confused?" Rather that seeing it as confusion, I see it as critical thinking, ie: not being sheep; and as such, I have no doubt that "Catholics for Free Choice," for example, are not confused in the least. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the KKK has an 'Equal Rights for Blacks' subgroup.

I repeat, people can be members of a church and not believe everything the minister believes.

So if Obama can sit for 20 years and listen to racist drivel.....and not believe it....I suppose you would give a free ride to someone who belonged to a racist church like I don't know, CHristian Identity.......??

[Topaz]

So if Obama can sit for 20 years and listen to racist drivel.....and not believe it....I suppose you would give a free ride to someone who belonged to a racist church like I don't know, CHristian Identity.......??

Dancer , what about the Bush family males attending Bohemian Grove in California and all those world leaders, radio hosts etc that are invited there? Don't what it is, easy to find on the net. You think the Rev Wright stood there for 20 years preaching what you are saying he did? No, he didn't and he doesn't preach there now, he's retired.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer , what about the Bush family males attending Bohemian Grove in California and all those world leaders, radio hosts etc that are invited there? Don't what it is, easy to find on the net.

I have no idea what that has to do with Wright. Is there aluminiun foil involved?

Edited May 6, 2008 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

You think the Rev Wright stood there for 20 years preaching what you are saying he did? No, he didn't and he doesn't preach there now, he's retired.

Your right, Wright did not preach for 20 years. He preached for 36, Obama listened to him preach his heteful tinfoil nonsense for 20 years.

[Guest American Woman]

And if the minister believes that AIDs is a US gov't conspiracy to kill blacks...do you sit and go hmmmm or do you look elsehwhere??

Obama said he wasn't present the day Wright gave that sermon, but I notice that while you're stuck on the man, you have nothing to say about the reality-- how many blacks do believe it, how many blacks don't trust the government, and no comment at all from you about the Tuskegee experiment and how in light of what the government did there, it might be not so 'off the wall' for blacks to not trust our government.

But in twenty years of sermons, there was one sermon about AIDs and the U.S. government, so speaking for myself, I can't see leaving a church I'd attended for years, a congregation that I really liked, over one sermon or one belief that I didn't share with the minister.

So if Obama can sit for 20 years and listen to racist drivel.....and not believe it....I suppose you would give a free ride to someone who belonged to a racist church like I don't know, CHristian Identity.......??

So you're familiar with all the sermons Wright preached for 20 years?? And they were all "racist drivel?" Funny how we're only hearing about snippets from a handful of sermons when there's "20 years" of "racist drivel" to choose from.

Tell you what. When you can show me that Wright preached what you claim he did, I'll consider your question. Until then, I'll just dismiss your saying his church is "like Christian Identity" as more of your hyperbole.

Now the reason I posted what I did was to call attention to the Tuskegee experiment, and how in light of past government actions Wrights' claims cannot be dismissed because of the number of blacks who believe it; dismiss the man, but the claims need to be addressed. That's what I'm interested in discussing; not this nonsense about "20 years of racist drivel" based on some snippets from a handful of sermons or whether or not Obama should have left the church. The lack of responses to that experiment, while on and on people go about Wright, is truly unbelievable.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Now the reason I posted what I did was to call attention to the Tuskegee experiment, and how in light of past government actions Wrights' claims cannot be dismissed because of the number of blacks who believe it; dismiss the man, but the claims need to be addressed. That's what I'm interested in discussing; not this nonsense about "20 years of racist drivel" based on some snippets from a handful of sermons or whether or not Obama should have left the church. The lack of responses to that experiment, while on and on people go about Wright, is truly unbelievable.

Why do the claims need to be addressed? Because of "the number of blacks" who believe it? How many is that?

The US government has conducted numerous medical experiments on people....even "white" people. So should we make similar assertions vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS and "whites"? Tuskegee is well documented and the subject of at least two documentaries. Where is the evidence to support Wright's contentions? And why aren't consumers of blood products, drug addicts, or homosexuals in line to accuse the government of the same thing?

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually I remember reading about that experiment quite some time ago (years), it truly was heinous thing to do. Another one that shocked me was when I read about another experiment, this time targeting mental patients. They exposed these people to varying levels of radiation in order to study the effects on the human body, of course it was done without consent of any kind. If I get time I'll see if I can dig up anything on it. As I said, it was shocking.

That didn't take too long after all. Theres actually plenty of info about this. A note of clarification, this article states that consent was in doubt, they're still argueing about whether it was recieved or not I guess.

*Some of the subjects were children, mental patients, retarded people or prison inmates.

*Some people were given very highs doses of radiation, which were sometimes lethal.

*Women who were about to have therapeutic abortions were sometimes given radioactive substances for tests to be done on the fetuses after the abortions.

NY Times

Edited May 6, 2008 by AngusThermopyle