Is Rev. Michael Pfleger Obama’s new pastor problem? Does any of this matter or is it a “Rachel Ray scarf” issue? Have Americans gone crazy or are we just bored?

Article here: Obama quits Chicago church (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_el_pr/obama)

YouTube video here: "I'm white I'm entitled" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8)

when Barry Obama 1st went to the South side of Chicago, he needed all the street "cred" he could muster, so he joined the blackest black church he could find. now that it's no longer politically advantageous, he's left it on the curb.

nice to know that his faith is 2nd only to his lust for power.:thumbs:

nice to know that his (Obama's) faith is 2nd only to his lust for power.:thumbs:

Actually, I'd prefer it if his 'faith' came in about 537th place on his list of priorities.

_______________________

"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt." _________Mike Huben

Actually, I'd prefer it if his 'faith' came in about 537th place on his list of priorities.

_______________________

"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt." _________Mike Huben
ok, fine. with your statements on the subject, i think that's a reasonable statement.

look for him in divorce court if his wife's campaigning becomes an issue too:@@:

Does Obama have a new pastor problem?

Um...no.

Of course the hyper-partisans are going to try to bloviate about Obama's church right through the election, but every time they do they are going to have Hagee and Parsley's words thrown right back at them relentlessly.

when Barry Obama 1st went to the South side of Chicago, he needed all the street "cred" he could muster, so he joined the blackest black church he could find. now that it's no longer politically advantageous, he's left it on the curb.

nice to know that his faith is 2nd only to his lust for power.:thumbs:

How can Obama win? He gets criticized for his pastor's comments and now he gets criticized for leaving the church. A couple of things...

1. Show me a successful politician who doesn't use religion for political reasons and I'll eat a hat.
2. Switching churches has nothing to do with faith. My grandmother has switched churches numerous times, because (go figure) she wanted a different pastor.

This pastor is not Obama's problem (although a 2003 Chicago Sun-Times article describes them as close).

But what does this say about that church?

How many nasty, negative, divisive people does this congregation need to hear?

All the Wright defenses go out the window on this guy.
He is not of another discriminated generation. He did not grow up on the back of the bus. He didn't feel like a second class citizen growing up.
He simply attracts an audience that likes anger.

Just another race hustler.

And, like Michelle Obama, you can change your words or apologize for them later, but it's your fault that the audience cheered when you said them.

...it's your fault that the audience cheered when you said them.
The difference is that the audience got to hear her whole speech in context and knew what she really meant instead of what you are trying to make it sound like she meant by taking snippets of speech out of context and blowing them out of proportion.
:slap:

Her problem was not one of context.
When she gave her speech the second time, she added the word "really", which several of you here felt was significant.

It sounded quite a bit worse without the addition of that word, and the audience cheered quite happily when they heard it the negative way.


If you can demonstrate to me what Pfleger or Michelle really meant, by way of the important parts of her speech that I left out, by all means, go ahead.

Otherwise, quit running to the "out of context" argument.

Her problem was not one of context.
Correct.
Lack of context is your problem, not hers.

:thumbs:

[QUOTE=Brooks]Her problem was not one of context.
When she gave her speech the second time, she added the word "really", which several of you here felt was significant.

It sounded quite a bit worse without the addition of that word, and the audience cheered quite happily when they heard it the negative way.


If you can demonstrate to me what Pfleger or Michelle really meant, by way of the important parts of her speech that I left out, by all means, go ahead.
************************************************** ***
I heard over the weekend,that someone at the RNC has a bona fide
Video of Michelle givin a preaching in that Church of their's {former}
where she rants on about Whitey,pretty bad like.
I believe someone said they're { Republicans } are gonna wait till fall
to unleash it.

[QUOTE=Brooks]Her problem was not one of context.
When she gave her speech the second time, she added the word "really", which several of you here felt was significant.

It sounded quite a bit worse without the addition of that word, and the audience cheered quite happily when they heard it the negative way.


If you can demonstrate to me what Pfleger or Michelle really meant, by way of the important parts of her speech that I left out, by all means, go ahead.
************************************************** ***
I heard over the weekend,that someone at the RNC has a bona fide
Video of Michelle givin a preaching in that Church of their's {former}
where she rants on about Whitey,pretty bad like.
I believe someone said they're { Republicans } are gonna wait till fall
to unleash it.
i was hoping for a positive October surprise for a change, but that'll work if it's authentic. it would be to important to wait for 2008.

Says more about his ability to judge people. Given what's going on in his church i think the notion of letting him go off to negotiate with foreign leaders like ahdmidinejad, chavez, or kim without pre-conditions is a complete non-starter.

Correct.
Lack of context is your problem, not hers.

:thumbs:
That's it?

That's your response?

That's you showing me the proper context of the speech?

Drama, there is no further context to either of these speeches, and I think when you read or listen to the whole thing you'll see that too.

Or, so it seems, you already have.

Hey Dharm,
Was McCain a member of Hagee's or Parsley's church?

Was he a member of either church for 20 years?


Um...no.

Of course the hyper-partisans are going to try to bloviate about Obama's church right through the election, but every time they do they are going to have Hagee and Parsley's words thrown right back at them relentlessly.

...she added the word "really"...............and the audience cheered quite happily when they heard it the negative way.

And for that I am extremely proud of them.

Hey Dharm,
Was McCain a member of Hagee's or Parsley's church?

Hey, waldo. Was McCain actively seeking the endorsement of the (ignorant twit) pastor John Hagee.......??

Think about that aspect of it. (If, being a rightwinger, you are capable of doing so)

He sure was/did.

So the comparison is mcain spent a year seeking their endorsement and obama sat in a church for 20 years listening to guys like wright and pfleger. do carry that comparison forward for us. Twenty years of listening to that stuff vs. a year of seeking an endorsement. How far out on that limb do you want to crawl?

Twenty years of listening to that stuff vs. a year of seeking an endorsement. How far out on that limb do you want to crawl?

Limb?!?!? LOL.

You seem to have mistaken me for an Obama supporter.

I detest the fact that both of them listened to the religious bullshit thess guys were spewing.......at any time, for any length of time.

And, I am not voting for or supporting either of them. I was just trying to show you (unsuccessfully) how hypocritical and partisan you're being about it.

YOU are the one who thinks that what one of the candidates did --with regards to religious affiliations-- was perfectly acceptable, but what the other did was horrible. Not me.

The 'limb' is all yours.

Hey, waldo. Was McCain actively seeking the endorsement of the (ignorant twit) pastor John Hagee.......??

Think about that aspect of it. (If, being a rightwinger, you are capable of doing so)

You are exactly right. This is far more politically relevent than some guy who is a guest speaker at the candidate's church, especially when John McCain was going around for months saying Hagee's endorsement was a "foreign policy endorsement" and that he agreed on foreign policy with the guy who says Hitler was doing God's work.

The reichwingers are desperately trying to convince themselves that McCain seeking out Hagee's endorsement doesn't mean anything.
They are deluded.

That's it?

That's your response?

Yup, thats it, just the simple truth. A habitual lack of context is YOUR problem.


That's you showing me the proper context of the speech?

I would not dream of wasting both our time since I am aware that you know perfectly well what you are doing when you are in desperate partisan spin mode.


Drama, there is no further context to either of these speeches,

Please.
Who do you think you are kidding?
I know you know better than that. If you seriously think your partial sentences contain complete context then you are so far detatched from reality you are beyond reason.


and I think when you read or listen to the whole thing you'll see that too.

Been there, done that, thats how I know you are full of shit.

:thumbs:

It's weird. Back in the days when I still went to church, the sermons had nothing to do with politics or race - they were about the message of the church, and rightfully so. It doesn't cease to amaze me to see these ministers making racist rants with crowds of people cheering them on.

Strangely, this speech wasn't just racist, but it was mean-spirited, which is even more unbecoming of someone professing Christianity.

Strangely, this speech wasn't just racist, but it was mean-spirited, which is even more unbecoming of someone professing Christianity.

Are you talking about Hagee saying Katrina was God punishing New Orleans for having a gay pride parade?
Or saying that Hitler was doing God's work?
or Parsley saying that America exists to destroy Muslims?

There is a lot of mean-spirited racism going on in supposedly "Christian" churches these days.

Please.
Who do you think you are kidding?
I know you know better than that. If you seriously think your partial sentences contain complete context then you are so far detatched from reality you are beyond reason.

I would not dream of wasting both our time [showing the context] since I am aware that you know perfectly well what you are doing when you are in desperate partisan spin mode.

If there is something else to be gleaned from the rest of the speech you would have shown me by now.

It has never been your style to withhold proof (if you think you have any).

So the insults will increase, but the proof will not materialize.

If there is something else to be gleaned from the rest of the speech you would have shown me by now.

I would?
Why?

It isn't like you ever admit it when you are proven wrong.

You still wrongly claim "many on the left" is not a generalization and instead of just admitting your mistake so the discussion could move on, you are stubbornly and ignorantly digging in like a spoiled child having a tantrum.

So the insults will increase, but the proof will not materialize.

More blatent hypocrisy from the hack who started the "dhramatic" namecalling in the first place.

:rolleyes:

Limb?!?!? LOL.

You seem to have mistaken me for an Obama supporter.

I detest the fact that both of them listened to the religious bullshit thess guys were spewing.......at any time, for any length of time.

And, I am not voting for or supporting either of them. I was just trying to show you (unsuccessfully) how hypocritical and partisan you're being about it.

YOU are the one who thinks that what one of the candidates did --with regards to religious affiliations-- was perfectly acceptable, but what the other did was horrible. Not me.

The 'limb' is all yours.

I'm not attempting to be partisan. McCain is indeed a flawed candidate. As is obama. I was merely pointing out that one of them has a much deeper problem to address than the other.

You are exactly right. This is far more politically relevent than some guy who is a guest speaker at the candidate's church, especially when John McCain was going around for months saying Hagee's endorsement was a "foreign policy endorsement" and that he agreed on foreign policy with the guy who says Hitler was doing God's work.

The reichwingers are desperately trying to convince themselves that McCain seeking out Hagee's endorsement doesn't mean anything.
They are deluded.

Not suggesting it doesn't mean anything. As i've said it highlights an issue about one's judgement. In seeking endorsements from those two characters he's attempting to garner votes, which any politician does. Sitting in a church for 20 years listening to the race-baiting and America bashing whether from the exisiting pastor or invited guests raises the question of what the hell was obama thinking going to a church like that. And consequently if he can't make that kind of simple judgement what's it going to mean on the international stage.
If you'd like to make the argument that they are comparable have at it.

I'm not attempting to be partisan.

It just comes natural to you.


McCain is indeed a flawed candidate.

Congrats!
That can be the first thing on the list of things you have gotten right!


As is obama. I was merely pointing out that one of them has a much deeper problem to address than the other.

Yes, McCain certainly does, since his endorsements tie directly to his political campaign. Especially when he was saying for months that he agrees with Hagee on foreign policy.

on the other hand, Obama went to the same church as some people who said controversial things. Not as big of a deal from a political perspective.

It just comes natural to you.



Congrats!
That can be the first thing on the list of things you have gotten right!



Yes, McCain certainly does, since his endorsements tie directly to his political campaign. Especially when he was saying for months that he agrees with Hagee on foreign policy.

on the other hand, Obama went to the same church as some people who said controversial things. Not as big of a deal from a political perspective.

From a political perspective it's everything. Character and the ability to judge character are one of the core issues in every political campaign.

As i've asked previously do explain if you think 20 years vs. 1 year are comparable.

From a political perspective it's everything. Character and the ability to judge character are one of the core issues in every political campaign.

I agree and it shows terrible judgement on McCain's part to seek out the endorsement of men who had such controversial statements on the public record going back years.


As i've asked previously do explain if you think 20 years vs. 1 year are comparable.

Apples and oranges.

I agree and it shows terrible judgement on McCain's part to seek out the endorsement of men who had such controversial statements on the public record going back years.

Are we to take it that you think mccain has exercised bad judgement and obama hasn't?



Apples and oranges.

Because 20 years vs. 1 doesn't favour you!

Are we to take it that you think mccain has exercised bad judgement and obama hasn't?

Correct. I have been impressed by Obama's character and judgement through this campaign.



Because 20 years vs. 1 doesn't favour you!

No, because it is an inaccurate analogy.

Correct. I have been impressed by Obama's character and judgement through this campaign.

:@@:




No, because it is an inaccurate analogy.

It's not an analogy, it's history.

It's not an analogy, it's history.

And we are back to apples and oranges.

Brooks: If there is something else to be gleaned from the rest of the speech you would have shown me by now.
It has never been your style to withhold proof (if you think you have any).
Dhrama: I would? Why?
It isn't like you ever admit it when you are proven wrong.

Brooks: "So the insults will increase, but the proof will not materialize.
Dhrama: "...stubbornly and ignorantly digging in like a spoiled child having a tantrum.... blatent hypocrisy.... the hack....

No comment necessary.

Brooks: If there is something else to be gleaned from the rest of the speech you would have shown me by now.
It has never been your style to withhold proof (if you think you have any).
Dhrama: I would? Why?
It isn't like you ever admit it when you are proven wrong.

It is noted that you didn't deny the truth of my statement.

You still wrongly claim "many on the left" is not a generalization...
If you want to keep this one alive, so be it.

You say my phrase "many on the left" is a broad, sweeping generalization (even though "sweeping" means indiscriminate, which is ruled out by use of the word "many")
Fine.

Then you use the phrase "prominent conservatives" without narrowing down the field and claim that is not a generalization.
Your grouping of all prominent consevatives is not generalizing.
Fine.

If you want to stand by this fine, but my God man, do it quietly.

You say my phrase "many on the left" is a broad, sweeping generalization. Fine.

Thank you for deigning to concede such an obvious point.

It is noted that you didn't deny the truth of my statement.
Any context you can provide will not change the meaning of either of the statements in question.

There. There's your challenge. Prove me wrong.


(Jeopardy theme plays in background)

Any context you can provide will not change the meaning of either of the statements in question.

Context completely changes the meaning, as numerous people have pointed out to you numerous times.

Clearly you will never admit that so why would I waste my time?

Context completely changes the meaning, as numerous people have pointed out to you numerous times.

Clearly you will never admit that so why would I waste my time?
So..... in other words...... you're not gonna say.

(Also, who are the numerous people?)

So..... in other words...... you're not gonna say.

No, I just won't waste my time on someone who can't have an honest discussion.

.

No, I just won't waste my time on someone who can't have an honest discussion.

So..... in other words...... you're not gonna say.

So..... in other words...... you're not gonna say.

Sorry Brooks, I have to be very careful what I say to you from now on lest I upset a certain moderator.

:rolleyes:

And we are back to apples and oranges.

:@@: :@@:

You've got this going for you, you rarely turn down the opportunity to miss the obvious.

On resigning from his church (does he get to keep his secret decoder ring or will it soon be on ebay?)

"I didn't anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny."

Wright and Pfleger as conventional!!!! And drama thinks he's shown good character judgement?
His entire notion of 'judgement' is called into question if he thinks these guys are conventional.

Wright and Pfleger as conventional!!!! And drama thinks he's shown good character judgement?


Waldo, if you can't refer to Dharma by his screen name, don't refer to him at all.

Sorry Brooks, I have to be very careful what I say to you from now on lest I upset a certain moderator.
:rolleyes:
Administrators have never been upset by someone answering a relentlessly avoided question.
Fire away.

Brooks, did you ever answer my question about exactly what "rights" you were referring to that are supposedly listed in the Constitution?

Brooks, did you ever answer my question about exactly what "rights" you were referring to that are supposedly listed in the Constitution?
I'll be happy to answer you on the proper thread so I can remember what I was referring to.

I will await your answer.

I will await your answer.
OK. Where?

OK. Where?

In the thread where I asked you.

In the thread where I asked you.
Do YOU happen to remember where YOU asked that?

Thank you for deigning to concede such an obvious point.
More of your "I know you are but what am I" debate style.

More of your "I know you are but what am I" debate style.
That comment is neither true nor necessary.

Do YOU happen to remember where YOU asked that?

Yes, I do. (http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=486121&postcount=72)

Hey Dharm,

You never did answer my question in post 15.

Are you staying away because it rips appart your argument?


Are we to take it that you think mccain has exercised bad judgement and obama hasn't?





Because 20 years vs. 1 doesn't favour you!

Hey Dharm,

You never did answer my question in post 15.

Of course not. FT destroyed your argument in post 17. There is no need for me to pile on when you have already been discredited.


Are you staying away because it rips appart your argument?

Obviously not. :rolleyes:

Um...no.

Of course the hyper-partisans are going to try to bloviate about Obama's church right through the election, but every time they do they are going to have Hagee and Parsley's words thrown right back at them relentlessly.

Again,yer wrong as soggy rain.
Since the Visiting Pastor { actually a long time friend of Obama and
also a Catholic Priest } WILL definately be a real problem for
The Bama.He's white.And that makes him fair game.It's perfectly
acceptable,even laudable to play the race card when it's a White
guy.Plus that White Guy { is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan }.
McCain didn't sit in Hagee's church,you numbskull.

FT didn't destroy anything in post 17.

It's not the same and you know it.

FT might be able to destroy his toilet in 5 minutes, but thats about it.


Of course not. FT destroyed your argument in post 17. There is no need for me to pile on when you have already been discredited.



Obviously not. :rolleyes:

FT didn't destroy anything in post 17.

Yes, he destroyed your attempt at dismissing Hagee and Parsley with the nonsense argument that he didn't attend their churches. That only shows that you do not understand the issues with them.


FT might be able to destroy his toilet in 5 minutes, but thats about it.

Real mature... :rolleyes:


.

If McCain had been sitting in Hagee's church as a member for the past 20 years while these edgy things had been said, and not once did he ever stand up and renounce what was being said, then I would say that McCain must obviously support and agree with Hagee's statements, no matter how much you denounce them now. You've had 20 years to walk out of the church. Now all of the sudden your running for president you find the statements offensive? That is the problem Obama has with Wright.

Mccain has no such problem, and you know it.




Yes, he destroyed your attempt at dismissing Hagee and Parsley with the nonsense argument that he didn't attend their churches. That only shows that you do not understand the issues with them.



Real mature... :rolleyes:


.

Mccain has no such problem, and you know it.

McCain has a completely different and much worse problem.
McCain sought out the endorsement of someone who was on record as saying Hitler was doing God's work, and McCain said he did it because he agreed with that person on foreign policy.

It is worse becuase he sought them out for their political endorsement.

This says a lot about McCain's judgement.

.

Just becasue McCain said he agrees with Hagee on foreign policy doesn't mean he agrees with Hagees Hitler statement.

McCain seperated himself from Hagee very quickly after the statement.

Obama refused to distance himself from Wright. (at first)

Quote from Obama ........
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."

There is a big difference between the judgement of Obama and the judgement of McCain.

Even Dharm and FT should be able to see that.


McCain has a completely different and much worse problem.
McCain sought out the endorsement of someone who was on record as saying Hitler was doing God's work, and McCain said he did it because he agreed with that person on foreign policy.

It is worse becuase he sought them out for their political endorsement.

This says a lot about McCain's judgement.

.

Just becasue McCain said he agrees with Hagee on foreign policy doesn't mean he agrees with Hagees Hitler statement.

Yes, it does. His Hitler statement goes directly to foreign policy.


McCain seperated himself from Hagee very quickly after the statement.

No, the statement was made 10 years ago. He only flip flopped on Hagee after the pressure was turned up on him.

There is a huge difference.

but you don't get it.

Oh my bad

Still, McCain wasn't a member for 20 years.






Yes, it does. His Hitler statement goes directly to foreign policy.



No, the statement was made 10 years ago. He only flip flopped on Hagee after the pressure was turned up on him.

There is a huge difference.

but you don't get it.

If McCain had been sitting in Hagee's church as a member for the past 20 years while these edgy things had been said....
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein

So,

What happened to Dharm anyway? Was he banned? If so why?

Dharm,

I whish you nothing but the best. (I mean that)


“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein

So,

What happened to Dharm anyway? Was he banned? If so why?

Dharm,

I whish you nothing but the best. (I mean that)
he did what he always does, argue with the wrong person.

Oh,

Who is the wrong person? (I have an idea but I'm not 100% sure)

he did what he always does, argue with the wrong person.

Oh,

Who is the wrong person? (I have an idea but I'm not 100% sure)
He was extremely disrespectful to Vile, and not for the first time.

He was extremely disrespectful to Vile, and not for the first time.
disrespectful?:lolhit:

he directly challenged his authority, that's like pointing a gun at a cop:taser:

It's like cussing at one of the umpires when you are trying to win the World Series.


disrespectful?:lolhit:

he directly challenged his authority, that's like pointing a gun at a cop:taser:

It's like cussing at one of the umpires when you are trying to win the World Series.

Dharma's main problem is that he doesn't know when to quit. I gave him a three day time-out to cool off.

I try not to dish out any crap unless others dish it out first.

Sometimes I can ignore the crap other times, I have to start to dish out aswell.


Dharma's main problem is that he doesn't know when to quit. I gave him a three day time-out to cool off.

I haven't read all Dharma's post or sources. I'm just really surprised about this and would be even bet odds both Vilepagan and Dharm are unique but Dharma isn't going to bend over and you can not force some one to change there mind.

puke puke puke

I haven't read all Dharma's post or sources. I'm just really surprised about this and would be even bet odds both Vilepagan and Dharm are unique but Dharma isn't going to bend over and you can not force some one to change there mind.

puke puke puke

I wish I had the first damn clue what you were trying to say...puke, puke, puke? What does that mean?

You said you banned dharmabum for a few day's so without reading to far into this I can tell he's being censored instead of ignored. What don't you want me to see if dharmabum continued.

I'm sick over it.

You said you banned dharmabum for a few day's so without reading to far into this I can tell he's being censored instead of ignored. What don't you want me to see if dharmabum continued.

I'm sick over it.

This is the thread that earned dharma a time-out.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=36659&page=2

I suppose whether or not it was censorship is a matter of opinion, but he was given some time off for being unduly argumentative.

BTW, this is a private website, so your freedom of speech isn't unlimited.

BTW, this is a private website, so your freedom of speech isn't unlimited.

Are saying this is your media? and not ours.
__________________________________________________ ______

Thanks for finding the post I'll go look at it.

Are saying this is your media? and not ours.
__________________________________________________ ______

Thanks for finding the post I'll go look at it.
he's a moderator, that's his job:rolleyes:

he's a moderator, that's his right or his job if dharmabum did sometng illigal? or against bigbrothers opinion.

so is this Big Brothers place.

he's a moderator, that's his right or his job if dharmabum did sometng illigal? or against bigbrothers opinion.

so is this Big Brothers place.

The best way to look at this is that Allforums is your neighborhood pub, and I'm the bouncer. If someone goes over the line, they get shown to the door.

he's a moderator, that's his right or his job if dharmabum did sometng illigal? or against bigbrothers opinion.

so is this Big Brothers place.
A few years ago a Supreme Court Justice said that he couldn't define pornography but would know it if he saw it. Similarly, if you just pop in once in a while and ask for an explanation about Dharma, a few posts aren't going to tell you the whole story. But if you're on here a lot, you know it when you see it.

It's not a coincidence that if we took an annoyance poll, he's probably the only one who would be on 95% of everyone's top three.

Nobody wants it to suck here. The only tool there is to reduce the sucking is the moderator. A fair moderator, and they all are, has to be able to sense when someone is becoming so off-putting and needlessly crass that people will start to stay away. It's a business.

I once disagreed with a temporary banning, but the VAST majority agreed with it, so in the end it was the right thing to do.

I would hate to make the decision to ban someone but I'm very glad someone else is willing to.

I would hate to make the decision to ban someone but I'm very glad someone else is willing to.

I like your writing
thanks for the info.

I like your writing

And I like your country.
I stopped at Halifax and St. Johns on a cruise and nobody was fat.