Religious Resignation

[Jester]

Okay. So it is what I said, then. You don't like Liberation Theology, and therefore you feel free to declare him and his heretics and apostates.

Needless to say, I don't think they acknowledge your authority to excommunicate them, Pope Kandrathe. They think they're right about god, you think you're right about god, and unless the skies open up or you fight to the death, I don't see how you're going to settle that.

Louis Farrakhan is a complicated character, and while I think he's a nasty anti-semite, this is not the side of him that the black religious community regularily sees. They see the anti-poverty work and the anti-drug work, the social activism and the million man march. I don't think he deserves a lifetime acheivement award, I think he should probably go crawl into a hole somewhere and never come out. But I think Trinity had many reasons other than congratulating his jew-hating to give him one.

As per printing the open letter from Ali Bagdadhi, they printed an open letter addressed to a super-prominent member of their congregation. This is not an endorsement of its contents.

If these were just a couple examples from a career like, say, David Duke's? Fine, anti-semite. But the usually overzealous ADL cleared him, and I haven't seen anything that isn't one of the two above things, neither of which is very direct.

-Jester

Afterthought: That's quite the hatchetjob of an article you have there.

[kandrathe]

Okay. So it is what I said, then. You don't like Liberation Theology, and therefore you feel free to declare him and his heretics and apostates.

Needless to say, I don't think they acknowledge your authority to excommunicate them, Pope Kandrathe. They think they're right about god, you think you're right about god, and unless the skies open up or you fight to the death, I don't see how you're going to settle that.

Let's see, Heresy = "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards". Who is the standard bearer for Christianity? UCC? No. TUC? No. Most of standard orthodoxy has condemned Liberation Theology as heresy and apostasy. I agree with them. Don't like my answer, then ask the Pope. Don't like the Catholic view, then ask the Baptists, Evangelicals or any non-political church.

Louis Farrakhan is a complicated character, and while I think he's a nasty anti-semite, this is not the side of him that the black religious community regularly sees. They see the anti-poverty work and the anti-drug work, the social activism and the million man march. I don't think he deserves a lifetime achievement award, I think he should probably go crawl into a hole somewhere and never come out. But I think Trinity had many reasons other than congratulating his jew-hating to give him one.

Ok, so if Hillary and Pat Robertson(trying to think of the White congruent to Farrakhan) were good friends and worked on many projects together, and Hillary gave Pat a life time achievement award you'd give her a pass?

As per printing the open letter from Ali Bagdadhi, they printed an open letter addressed to a super-prominent member of their congregation. This is not an endorsement of its contents.

What? If its crap you flush it, not post it on the bulletin board. I'm sorry, but re-publishing it is endorsing it.

If these were just a couple examples from a career like, say, David Duke's? Fine, anti-semite. But the usually overzealous ADL cleared him, and I haven't seen anything that isn't one of the two above things, neither of which is very direct.

Like Obama himself, Wright has perfected the art of being the semi non-confrontational radical black man. The ADL is not the perfect litmus test on all racism. You can make allusions without ever saying the thing you want to say. That is why I referenced his sermon when he talked about Romans being Italian, Europeans, being white, and being rich. He characterized in that sermon that rich, white people are the Romans, and then described how Hillary fits the mold. His allusion is that rich white Americans are the Romans and implementors of oppression, and poor, struggling people of color are the chosen people of God. He then goes on the say he has learned to love his enemies, love them to death. This is his Black Liberation theology in full expression. Maybe you cannot read between the lines, but maybe I am more familiar with the allusions made in sermons than you, so I do read between the lines and I don't like the implications.

In a recent CSPAN NPC lecture Wright was asked about his position on Israel, and while he said he believed Israel/Israeli's have a right to exist, he also said "Have you read the Link? Do you read the Link, Americans for Middle Eastern Understanding, where Palestinians and Israelis need to sit down and talk to each other and work out a solution where their children can grow in a world together, and not be talking about killing each other, that that is not God's will?" Here is the link to AMEU's website and I'll let you be the judge on where they stand on Israel's right to exist. AMEU was founded and is funded by the Saudi's and Saudi Aramco and is a site devoted to anti-Israeli propaganda. Now, being against Israel is not in and of itself antisemitic, but added to his other associations and rhetoric it makes me suspicious. He has been careful to walk a delicate line and keep his rhetoric below the ADL radar. But, a wink and nod he's more akin to Ali Bagdadhi, the Nation of Islam, and his former Islamic affiliations. What do you think? Is it possible he might be antisemitic?

Afterthought: That's quite the hatchet job of an article you have there.

Well, it's Obama's own words from his book. When you contrast words with actions you reveal the politician.

[Jester]

Let's see, Heresy = "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards". Who is the standard bearer for Christianity? UCC? No. TUC? No. Most of standard orthodoxy has condemned Liberation Theology as heresy and apostasy. I agree with them. Don't like my answer, then ask the Pope. Don't like the Catholic view, then ask the Baptists, Evangelicals or any non-political church.

If that's the case, then they're all heretics. The Western Church has practices contrary to the Eastern one. Protestants have doctrines contrary to the Catholics, Lutherans contrary to Calvinists. The Mormons have doctrines contrary to everyone except the Mormons. Benedict XVI have doctrines contrary to Paul VI, Liberation theology does not square with Reconcliliation theology. Who's going to sort this mess out, to declare who's in the big tent and who's out? And on what grounds?

This big tent "Christianty" you're talking about doesn't exist. Who's the standard bearer for Christianity? Nobody and everybody. Everyone flies the flag of their own theological ideas, and nobody has any way of proclaiming their correctness, unless they want to march an army under that flag.

Ok, so if Hillary and Pat Robertson(trying to think of the White congruent to Farrakhan) were good friends and worked on many projects together, and Hillary gave Pat a life time achievement award you'd give her a pass?

Give her a pass on what? Being an anti-semite? It depends on what she did with Pat Robertson. Being associated witih him does not endear people to me, that's for certain. But, then, it's not a positive in my books that Wright is associated with Farrakhan either. It does not, however, immediately impart all of that man's worst characteristics on to Wright. It is a red flag that would cause me to look for further evidence. I have not found that evidence.

What? If its crap you flush it, not post it on the bulletin board. I'm sorry, but re-publishing it is endorsing it.

Right. So the New York Times is a Liberal, Conservative, Radical, Reactionary, Anti-Semitic, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Communist, Anarchist paper that thinks the NYT is the best and worst newspaper ever, with the fairest, most biased coverage in the country.

It's an open letter, Kandrathe, addressed to a member of their congregation discussing issues that are important to the church. It's not an editorial.

Like Obama himself, Wright has perfected the art of being the semi non-confrontational radical black man.

Does that phrase not sound a little off to you? Because it sure does to me.

The ADL is not the perfect litmus test on all racism.

They certainly aren't. But where they tend to make their errors is in being overzealous, not in giving anti-semites a pass for reasons unknown. They've criticised his connections to Farrakhan, but have said they've found nothing in his own sermons to support a charge of anti-semitism. Come to think of it, neither have you.

You can make allusions without ever saying the thing you want to say. That is why I referenced his sermon when he talked about Romans being Italian, Europeans, being white, and being rich. He characterized in that sermon that rich, white people are the Romans, and then described how Hillary fits the mold.

His allusion is that rich white Americans are the Romans and implementors of oppression, and poor, struggling people of color are the chosen people of God. He then goes on the say he has learned to love is enemies, love them to death. This is his Black Liberation theology in full expression. Maybe you cannot read between the lines, but maybe I am more familiar with the allusions made in sermons than you, so I do read between the lines and I don't like the implications.

If you're trying to convince me that he believes in Black Liberation Theology, don't bother, he proudly admits that. Obviously this is not your cup of tea, and that's your choice to make. But I don't see this as being particularily crazy. It was scarcely a generation ago that rich, white people made it a law of the land that poor, black people (and, at other times, Japanese, Chinese, Native, etc...) weren't really full people, and had to sit at the back of the bus, metaphorically and literally. They see their struggle to overcome that, to be recognized fully as humans, as being the same as Jesus' struggle with the Romans. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but then other people believed he rose from the dead and walked on water, so I think they can be given some leeway there.

In a recent CSPAN NPC lecture Wright was asked about his position on Israel, and while he said he believed Israel/Israeli's have a right to exist, he also said "Have you read the Link? Do you read the Link, Americans for Middle Eastern Understanding, where Palestinians and Israelis need to sit down and talk to each other and work out a solution where their children can grow in a world together, and not be talking about killing each other, that that is not God's will?" Here is the link to AMEU's website and I'll let you be the judge on where they stand on Israel's right to exist. AMEU was founded and is funded by the Saudi's and Saudi Aramco and is a site devoted to anti-Israeli propaganda. Now, being against Israel is not in and of itself antisemitic, but added to his other associations and rhetoric it makes me suspicious. He has been careful to walk a delicate line and keep his rhetoric below the ADL radar. But, a wink and nod he's more akin to Ali Bagdadhi, the Nation of Islam, and his former Islamic affiliations. What do you think? Is it possible he might be antisemitic?Well, it's Obama's own words from his book. When you contrast words with actions you reveal the politician.

Once again, it's all innuendo and supposition. He isn't just critical of Israel, he "walks a delicate line". With a "wink and a nod" he's Ali Bagdadhi, or the NoI, his former "Islamic affiliations". (Last I checked, he was "affiliated" with Trinity United, which is not Islamic.)

Is it *possible* he's anti-semitic? Yes. Have you *demonstrated* that he is anti-semitic? No.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Is it *possible* he's anti-semitic? Yes. Have you *demonstrated* that he is anti-semitic? No.

And, I'm not going to be able to convince you unless we catch Wright with his hand in the cookie jar. You claim to be a skeptic. But that only seems to extend to those things you already do not believe. When it comes to what you believe you are skeptical of anything to the contrary. There is direct evidence and there is circumstantial evidence. You don't seem to find that later valid.

So take the circumstantial evidence of Rezko. Involved in fund raising for Obama and involved with known middle eastern anti-Semites (if not extremists) and other convicted criminals. Who is also tied in with the as Wright, Ali Abunimah, Obama, Aiham Alsammarae and other such Chicago organizations. Ali Abunimah is one of the founders of Electonic Intifada, another anti-Israeli propaganda site and the anti-Semitic ISM Arab group Al Awda, the Palestine Right of Return Coalition.

Aiham Alsammarae is now an American citizen living in Chicago and a former Iraqi cabinet minister of Electicity who was convicted in Iraq of stealing about $650 million dollars.

It's not a conviction, it's just another case of circumstance. But these circumstances all point a certain direction. These individuals are linked and it makes you wonder. Are we seeing the tip of the iceberg here?

[Jester]

And, I'm not going to be able to convince you unless we catch Wright with his hand in the cookie jar.

If you wanted to call him a theif, I'd ask what he stole. If you wanted to call him a murderer, I'd ask who he killed. You want to call him an anti-semite. I'm asking you to prove that he is one, not that it would be plausible.

You claim to be a skeptic. But that only seems to extend to those things you already do not believe. When it comes to what you believe you are skeptical of anything to the contrary. There is direct evidence and there is circumstantial evidence. You don't seem to find that later valid.

If you go into court with only circumstantial evidence, you usually lose. It's weak, it tends to be open to interpretation, and it runs afoul of "innocent until proven guilty." It's not that it means nothing, but without any direct evidence, it's not worth a lot.

So take the circumstantial evidence of Rezko. Involved in fund raising for Obama and involved with known middle eastern anti-Semites (if not extremists) and other convicted criminals. Who is also tied in with the as Wright, Ali Abunimah, Obama, Aiham Alsammarae and other such Chicago organizations. Ali Abunimah is one of the founders of Electonic Intifada, another anti-Israeli propaganda site and the anti-Semitic ISM Arab group Al Awda, the Palestine Right of Return Coalition.

Aiham Alsammarae is now an American citizen living in Chicago and a former Iraqi cabinet minister of Electicity who was convicted in Iraq of stealing about $650 million dollars.

I thought Six Degrees of Separation was a game you played with Kevin Bacon, not an argument. Rezko is involved in fundraising for all sorts of people, he is a die-hard political junkie and influence peddler. He is connected to almost everyone, so of course if you start playing "he's with X, who's with Y, who's with Z", you end up at all sorts of crazy places. Maybe someone should ask Oliver Stone if he wants the movie rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezko#Ties_wi...ther_polticians

It's not a conviction, it's just another case of circumstance. But these circumstances all point a certain direction. These individuals are linked and it makes you wonder. Are we seeing the tip of the iceberg here?

Yes. There seems to be an awful lot of circumstance, a lot of "what if", a lot of "read between the lines", and not a whole lot of substance. This is a serious accusation, and you have yet to muster the weight of evidence to prove it.

Maybe your suspicions are correct. Maybe there is a great frozen continent of anti-semitism under all this. Or maybe people are trolling over Obama's connections in agonizing detail to derail his political chances, hoping that people will "read between the lines" long enough to cost him the election, and then let the subject rot in oblivion once its political function has been served.

-Jester

[Mavfin]

Settle it down a little before I have to lock this. I know it's about religion *and* politics, but, I have a couple of comments here myself.

eppie: Seriously, you sound like the European media. Come up with something of your own, and you'll get taken more seriously. Jester has about ten times more clue than you do how it works here, even if he doesn't always 'get it'. I don't quite understand politics in his country, either, down to the last detail. You're trying to project what your own (politically-influenced) media says onto the real world, and, as usual it fails to get even close to reality. Hell, eppie, if we believe all the stuff we read in the Euro media, the Muslims are already well under way in turning Western Europe to Sharia law. Is that really a true statement? Or is that just media reporting? You tell me. I don't know, I'm not there. If I'm to believe what I read, the EU is already working to outlaw voices it doesn't want to hear. Is that true, or just media 'focus' that ignores the whole picture?

Basically, eppie, if the two statements about Sharia law and EU outlawing stuff they don't want to hear sound like complete trash to you because I don't know the whole story, only what I've read in the media, then you know how we take you, spouting off to media stories that only show a little.

Jester and Occhi and the rest of you: you guys know where the line is. Honor it, please.

Now for my part...

As far as Christians and voting, I'm a 'Christian', but I tend to vote the way I think is best, and the church is probably the LAST place I'll turn to for political advice. I go to a very mainstream, tolerant church that talks about the love of God and service, etc. Churches that teach hate, and that you will go to hell if you don't do it their way, to me are just the 'Christian' manifestation of islamofascists. Wright, Pfleger are examples. Same hate, same want to control the people. On a more 'political' forum, a friend of mine said this, and I pretty much agree.

"Religious zealots who have all the answers and want to run my life scare the crap out of me. I don’t care if they worship Mecca or go to the corner church god zealots are dangerous."

Really, *anyone* who thinks they have all the answers and wants to run my life scares me. Zealots are dangerous. As far as political parties? They're mostly liars and sacks of s---, pretty much. You can't trust most politicians. You just have to vote for the one you think you can trust the most, and hope you're right. Sad that it has come to this, but, that's how it is in all the Western countries.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Eppie

You are an idiot.

I don't dislike Obama.

Occhi

Between pain pills and an out of commission shoulder, posting is almost too difficult. But I had to give an 'amen' -- on all counts.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

One of the best posts on the lounge, period.

I disagree. It's the 5th best. Gads! What's your meter?

Pete, Occhi, Kandrathe I have the idea you are just looking for something to justify your dislike for Obama.

Well I don't like taxes, and I don't like politicians in general, which includes the entire field of candidates. If there was a candidate who wanted to drastically scale back the Federal government and lower my taxes, then I'd be for that person.

I don't support Obama, he is much to religious for me (and where religion starts, common sense leaves....but you know my opinion on this matter) but claiming that he is in one way connected and therefore is himself in a certain way a racist is just ridiculous. Your discussion strategy of nitpicking certain remarks another person (jester in this case) made and thereby diverting from the real subject is not helping nice discussions here at all (this last part is not aimed at Kandrathe because he generally shows being able to understand what the opponent in a discussion is saying).

Thanks, I'm trying to stay on topic.

Another point more on the topic of this thread (at least of the 10 last posts) the racism question of certain people/groups. There is a big difference between a racism of say Hitler, that is in power and uses it to commit genocide, and the racism of a member of a lower class community that tries to give 'his people' some pride. Both ways are not good but there is a difference. E.g. the black panthers, obviously a racist group that committed crimes and had leaders that were in it for the power...but they still played an important role in emancipation of blacks. Comparing this; the KKK, that just went around and kill blacks and doing this without being held responsible because of support in politics and the police force is a different thing.
I am not sure that the all of the panthers would have done the same (KKK) thing if they were belonging to the 'ruling class'. For sure a part of them would.....

I disagree. Once you have a racial bias and gain power, then you are free to implement your racist policies. Take Mugabe's racist policies in stealing and looting of farms and businesses, murder of farmers and opposition members, terrorizing Supreme Court justices, bombing of opposition newspapers, imprisoning of critics and reckless promotion of racial hatred against whites and Jews. Hitler didn't start with the final solution either.

like I always say 'you have bastards in every social class/race and religious group', but trying to connect Obama with these things is just not right., it doesn't make sense.

I'm not connecting them, he is. I'm exposing the connections that we know about.

* Obama is the one who accepted $250,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko and his criminal cronies.
* Obama is the one who bought under-valued land from Rezko as an under the table graft.
* Obama is the one who sat in the pews of Wrights sermons for two decades without a peep of protest at what was said.
* Obama is the one who is friends with Ayers, a convicted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.
* Obama is the one who is friends with Ali Abunimah and helped him raise money for Palistinians.

These are not seven layers of separation they are one level of separation.

P.S. Since we are talking about Politics and Religion. I'll toss this into the discussion as well. In bin Laden's eyes, Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam. ... Should Obama become US commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action. The punishment for Apostasy in Islam is execution. Here is another link that implies since it is unclear when Obama rejected Islam, he would merely need to be captured and imprisoned until he accepts or rejects Islam. If he rejected it, then he could be executed. I believe it is most likely that the media and Obama's campaign will ignore the apostasy law altogether, and tar anyone who brings it up as a "bigot." The propagandists of CAIR, MPAC et al are quite savvy at portraying themselves as victims in response to presentations of uncomfortable aspects of Islam.

[kandrathe]

If you wanted to call him a thief, I'd ask what he stole. If you wanted to call him a murderer, I'd ask who he killed. You want to call him an anti-Semite. I'm asking you to prove that he is one, not that it would be plausible.

For physical crimes you can ask for physical evidence. But, what is the difference between a crime and a hate crime.

If you go into court with only circumstantial evidence, you usually lose. It's weak, it tends to be open to interpretation, and it runs afoul of "innocent until proven guilty." It's not that it means nothing, but without any direct evidence, it's not worth a lot.

Many times in trials the jury must also assess intent, which is that based on evidence (physical and circumstantial) they will try to determine what was in that persons heart when they committed the crime. So, you ask me to prove things that are judgment calls based on evidence that is both physical and circumstantial. In this case, no we don't have any direct evidence that Wright has uttered slurs against Jews. He runs in a circle of people who do.

I thought Six Degrees of Separation was a game you played with Kevin Bacon, not an argument. Rezko is involved in fund raising for all sorts of people, he is a die-hard political junkie and influence peddler. He is connected to almost everyone, so of course if you start playing "he's with X, who's with Y, who's with Z", you end up at all sorts of crazy places. Maybe someone should ask Oliver Stone if he wants the movie rights.

Not 6. One, and at most two with Aiham Alsammarae (a close friend of Rezko). link

Maybe your suspicions are correct. Maybe there is a great frozen continent of antisemitism under all this. Or maybe people are trolling over Obama's connections in agonizing detail to derail his political chances, hoping that people will "read between the lines" long enough to cost him the election, and then let the subject rot in oblivion once its political function has been served.

I also had suspicions about Mr. Clinton when the Jennifer Flowers incident unfolded, in which Bill was supposed to have used the Arkansas Highway Patrol to bring him hot chicks. It was the one reason I did not vote for him. I was afraid of what a person who has already abused his power, and had a history of sexual harrassment would do with more power. So, I'd say with any candidate, let them wriggle under the burning lens of public scrutiny now. It's much better to expose all the skeletons in the closet now, than to have to derail the nation and it's business for a year going through impeachment trials once again.

[Jester]

Not 6. One, and at most two with Aiham Alsammarae (a close friend of Rezko).

One is the link to Rezko, but if anyone is arguing that he's not a scumbag, I haven't heard them. That guy is pure sleaze, and Obama having even a passing connection with him is a serious blot on his record. He's a poltician that came out of Chicago, and you don't survive that without a few sketchy connections. As I said way back in the beginning of the previous thread, I don't think Obama walks on water, and anyone who does is in for a hard fall.

But linking from Obama through Rezko to Alsammarae, or any of the others, is two steps. By the same token, we could go through Rezko to George W. Bush, or the Clintons, or to any of a hundred politicians, Democrat and Republican, and to a veritable horde of lobbyists and interested parties. He's an influence peddler. These connections are his job and his life, and you can go through Rezko to practically anyone. Is there anything in particular that connects Obama to any of the nastier people in Rezko's rolodex?

The $2300 donated online by Alsammarae seems to be a non-issue. Obama makes that much in a good minute online, and such a contribution would go totally unnoticed, especially if broken into 6 parts. He did the honourable thing and donated the money to charity, along with most of his Rezko cash, as soon as it was brought to his attention. He's no longer the little kid from Chicago with big dreams, and no longer needs these people to ante up at the political poker table. I just hope it stays that way.

It's much better to expose all the skeletons in the closet now, than to have to derail the nation and it's business for a year going through impeachment trials once again.

As if the Clinton impeachment trials were in any sense necessary.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

One is the link to Rezko, but if anyone is arguing that he's not a scumbag, I haven't heard them. That guy is pure sleaze, and Obama having even a passing connection with him is a serious blot on his record. He's a poltician that came out of Chicago, and you don't survive that without a few sketchy connections. As I said way back in the beginning of the previous thread, I don't think Obama walks on water, and anyone who does is in for a hard fall.

Well, what does having much more than "even a passing connection" tell you then? link It appears to be a relationship that began in 1991, and remained close until Rezco got in trouble. Then suddenly he was an old acquaintance, and Obama says "This is not the Tony Rezko I used to know". So, if you believe as Obama characterizes it, that he made bonehead moves and can't figure this stuff out, what does that tell you about him? What does that tell you about his ability to become the Commander in Chief of one of the worlds super powers? What does it tell you about his ability to choose people of character to be in his inner circle, or in his Cabinet?

But linking from Obama through Rezko to Alsammarae, or any of the others, is two steps. By the same token, we could go through Rezko to George W. Bush, or the Clintons, or to any of a hundred politicians, Democrat and Republican, and to a veritable horde of lobbyists and interested parties. He's an influence peddler. These connections are his job and his life, and you can go through Rezko to practically anyone. Is there anything in particular that connects Obama to any of the nastier people in Rezko's rolodex?

We could, but I doubt any of them made direct deals with him, dined with him, spent time at his summer cabin. Rezko and Obama are close, very close.

The $2300 donated online by Alsammarae seems to be a non-issue. Obama makes that much in a good minute online, and such a contribution would go totally unnoticed, especially if broken into 6 parts. He did the honourable thing and donated the money to charity, along with most of his Rezko cash, as soon as it was brought to his attention. He's no longer the little kid from Chicago with big dreams, and no longer needs these people to ante up at the political poker table. I just hope it stays that way.

It's more than a non-issue, but I agree its merely a data point. You might also swallow the part about Obama checking up on Alsammarae in Iraqi jail as described, "just an inquiry for a constituent", but I mark it as another data point here. Here is an example of where your skepticism seems absent. I don't trust politicians, even the ones I like. But you swallow up the swill like a drunken hog.

As if the Clinton impeachment trials were in any sense necessary.

The only thing that would have been sadder, and more humiliating for the Office would have been photos or video tapes of his trysts published in Hustler.

[Jester]

* Obama is the one who accepted $250,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko and his criminal cronies.

Money now donated to charity. Politics in Chicago is ugly business, and while Obama has distanced himself from it admirably, it is very difficult to escape Rezko money. Obama is far from the only person who has taken it over the years, and he has a fairly reasonable argument that, as a political neophyte befriended by Rezko, he was not aware of the extent of his shady dealings.

* Obama is the one who bought under-valued land from Rezko as an under the table graft.

First, none of this was "under the table". Everything done in this deal by Obama and Rezko is public knowledge. Second, while it is stupid to associate oneself with Rezko, this transaction does not appear to be graft. They each bought one half of a property being split. Later, Obama wanted to expand his property to encompass 1/6th of Rezko's lot. The formula appraised value was $40,500, but Obama thought it fair that he paid him 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it, since it was 1/6th of the lot ($104,500, from $625,000).

Maybe that's $60,000 of graft. Or maybe Obama was just being fair to his neighbour. Would it not be strange that, rather than Rezko paying Obama for political favours, this would be Obama paying Rezko?

* Obama is the one who sat in the pews of Wrights sermons for two decades without a peep of protest at what was said.

This is correct, whatever you make of it.

* Obama is the one who is friends with Ayers, a convicted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.

"Friends" is too strong. Obama used "guy that lives in my neighbourhood." He apparently once hosted an appearance by Obama in 1996, during his state senate race. Ayers is a major fixture in the Chicago liberal academic scene, and a minor encounter with him is not news.

Also, point of curiosity, was Ayers ever convicted? He is certainly an unrepentant terrorist (and an incompetent one, to boot), so it scarcely matters to me, but I had thought the charges were dropped.

[/quote] * Obama is the one who is friends with Ali Abunimah and helped him raise money for Palistinians. [/quote]

His "friend" certainly doesn't seem very impressed with him these days. As with very nearly all American politicians, Obama has sold his ability to make any but the lamest criticisms of Israel to purchase national security cred. Par for the course, but it doesn't really endear him to Ali Abunimah.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

He also seems to be saying he just encountered him a handful of times at various lectures and dos, which would make him an aquaintance, not a "friend."

P.S. Since we are talking about Politics and Religion. I'll toss this into the discussion as well. In bin Laden's eyes, Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam. ... Should Obama become US commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action. The punishment for Apostasy in Islam is execution.

So, moral of the story, never elect anyone who might be construed as a former Muslim president. You might piss off Bin Laden, and that would somehow be bad.

-Jester

[Jester]

Well, what does having much more than "even a passing connection" tell you then? link It appears to be a relationship that began in 1991, and remained close until Rezco got in trouble. Then suddenly he was an old acquaintance, and Obama says "This is not the Tony Rezko I used to know". So, if you believe as Obama characterizes it, that he made bonehead moves and can't figure this stuff out, what does that tell you about him? What does that tell you about his ability to become the Commander in Chief of one of the worlds super powers? What does it tell you about his ability to choose people of character to be in his inner circle, or in his Cabinet?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Obama, a relative political neophyte at the time, did not know much about Rezko's back room deals. This is not to say that he escapes this unscathed. It is either damaging to his honesty or his judgement of character, you are correct. However, politics is a dirty game, and none of the players are squeaky clean. You make friends who might not turn out to be your friends after all. You take money that you need to campaign without really understanding where it came from.

Obama is thus of a kind with "Whitewater" Clinton or "Keating 5" McCain, no longer able to claim he's pure as driven snow. If there's even a single politician in Washington who claims that, it's probably because someone near them hasn't been caught yet. But I think Obama has been clear and candid about his connections to Rezko, has given the money to charity, and strongly rejects lobbyist support for his campaign. (A luxury of convenience, perhaps, given that he doesn't need it, but he rejects it all the same.)

We could, but I doubt any of them made direct deals with him, dined with him, spent time at his summer cabin. Rezko and Obama are close, very close.

That closeness is well demonstrated, at least in the past tense, and Obama has admitted as much. I think, regardless of whether you trust him or not, he has left that connection behind him, as it is no longer necessary, and is tremendously costly. All we can do is look to who he associates with during the campaign, and in the future. If, in the end, he's no better than Clinton was, then I won't be surprised. But he's not there yet.

It's more than a non-issue, but I agree its merely a data point. You might also swallow the part about Obama checking up on Alsammarae in Iraqi jail as described, "just an inquiry for a constituent", but I mark it as another data point here.

His father phoned up his Senator's office and asked for a status check on Alsammarae. Obama's office did so. He would have done the same for any constitutent, it's part of the job to act as a conduit for this kind of information. What should they have done, yelled at him for being the father of a scumbag and hung up the phone? I don't see how this is suspicious.

Careful with the data points, there is such a thing as overfitting your data.

Here is an example of where your skepticism seems absent. I don't trust politicians, even the ones I like. But you swallow up the swill like a drunken hog.

(I believe Mav already warned us once. If we want to continue this conversation, I don't think "drunken hog" is the kind of thing we should be calling each other.)

Skepticism is not synonymous with suspicion. Skepticism is about wanting solid evidence for claims. If the evidence is just a scattergun of inconclusive "data points", then I try not to make solid judgements. We do not yet know Obama well. Perhaps he is a disaster waiting to happen, although I doubt it, from what I've seen. But, listening to the right side of the internet, you'd suspect we had a feature-length film of him and Louis Farrakhan at a Mujhadeen training camp, grabbing money from Rezko in one hand and forking it over to suicide bombers in the other. This is the kind of conspiracy theory that happens when you play connect-the-dots, rather than weigh the evidence.

The only thing that would have been sadder, and more humiliating for the Office would have been photos or video tapes of his trysts published in Hustler.

And that's grounds for impeachment now? Plenty of presidents in the history books had trysts that would have been humiliating if they were published in Hustler. They are well known. Kennedy? Jefferson? The Presidency does not come with an oath of celibacy. Previous generations, however, seem to have had the sense to let the private be private.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Obama, a relative political neophyte at the time, did not know much about Rezko's back room deals. This is not to say that he escapes this unscathed. It is either damaging to his honesty or his judgement of character, you are correct. However, politics is a dirty game, and none of the players are squeaky clean. You make friends who might not turn out to be your friends after all. You take money that you need to campaign without really understanding where it came from.

That's one theory. An optimistic white washing theory, but it's possible he was a naive dupe.

Obama is thus of a kind with "Whitewater" Clinton or "Keating 5" McCain, no longer able to claim he's pure as driven snow. If there's even a single politician in Washington who claims that, it's probably because someone near them hasn't been caught yet. But I think Obama has been clear and candid about his connections to Rezko, has given the money to charity, and strongly rejects lobbyist support for his campaign. (A luxury of convenience, perhaps, given that he doesn't need it, but he rejects it all the same.)

Clear and candid rather than fleeing and covering up is a refreshing change, but all the same it stinks.

That closeness is well demonstrated, at least in the past tense, and Obama has admitted as much. I think, regardless of whether you trust him or not, he has left that connection behind him, as it is no longer necessary, and is tremendously costly. All we can do is look to who he associates with during the campaign, and in the future. If, in the end, he's no better than Clinton was, then I won't be surprised. But he's not there yet.

It's a good thing he's broken with Rezko, because its hard to be a political adviser of the President when you are in jail.

His father phoned up his Senator's office and asked for a status check on Alsammarae. Obama's office did so. He would have done the same for any constitutent, it's part of the job to act as a conduit for this kind of information. What should they have done, yelled at him for being the father of a scumbag and hung up the phone? I don't see how this is suspicious.

Your honor, I rest my case. After that, Alsammarae was sprung from jail, flown to Chicago, and has had the Interpol warrant for his arrest vacated. Who is helping Mr. Alsammarae?

Careful with the data points, there is such a thing as over fitting your data.

I'm not drawing any lines yet, but it's interesting to plot the patterns to see trends.

(I believe Mav already warned us once. If we want to continue this conversation, I don't think "drunken hog" is the kind of thing we should be calling each other.)

There is a difference between calling you a "drunken hog" and saying you are gobbling up the BS being fed to you like a "drunken hog". It's called a "simile" and the only disparagement to you would be that I think you have your BS blinders on again.

Skepticism is not synonymous with suspicion. Skepticism is about wanting solid evidence for claims. If the evidence is just a scattergun of inconclusive "data points", then I try not to make solid judgments. We do not yet know Obama well. Perhaps he is a disaster waiting to happen, although I doubt it, from what I've seen. But, listening to the right side of the internet, you'd suspect we had a feature-length film of him and Louis Farrakhan at a Mujhadeen training camp, grabbing money from Rezko in one hand and forking it over to suicide bombers in the other. This is the kind of conspiracy theory that happens when you play connect-the-dots, rather than weigh the evidence.

Or, rather "systematic doubt and continual testing". It is not, "relying on only the facts" as you characterize it.

And that's grounds for impeachment now? Plenty of presidents in the history books had trysts that would have been humiliating if they were published in Hustler. They are well known. Kennedy? Jefferson? The Presidency does not come with an oath of celibacy. Previous generations, however, seem to have had the sense to let the private be private.

Well, it's vague what is an impeachable offense, and only Congress can decide that. I would hold that any one who demeans the Office of President with such a scandal may be impeached. It depends on the circumstances.

[Jester]

That's one theory. An optimistic white washing theory, but it's possible he was a naive dupe.

I await further evidence, but I think naive dupe has it about right.

Clear and candid rather than fleeing and covering up is a refreshing change, but all the same it stinks.

Agreed. But do you have a candidate who doesn't? All politics stinks to high heaven, especially if you want to get all the way to the top.

Your honor, I rest my case. After that, Alsammarae was sprung from jail, flown to Chicago, and has had the Interpol warrant for his arrest vacated. Who is helping Mr. Alsammarae?

You rest your case on a vague insinuation? Or on the "damning" evidence that Obama's office inquired about Alsammarae's condition, recieved a reply, and conveyed it to the family?

By all accounts, including his own, Alsammarae broke out of Iraqi jail, and it seems it was with the help of private security forces from DynCorp. Obviously, he has contacts, he was a minister in Iraq for two years, not exactly a low-profile job. Perhaps Rezko was his man in the US, it certainly fits, especially with his having posted Rezko's bail after the high-profile arrest. The two were clearly up to their ears in Iraq reconstruction contract shenanigans. It also appears the US embassy was looking out for him:

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_...02502.html

Also interesting that Alsammarae appears to have a similar pattern to Rezko of donating to everyone to hedge his bets. So long as we're asking hypothetical questions, perhaps he has more friends than just an old Chicago political insider?

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail...rae&first=Aiham

However, all we know Obama's office did was ask the embassy how he was doing. Apparently, he got the reply that he was doing fine, and that's the end of the trail. Everything else on Obama is speculation. Needless to say, I'm waiting on something better than your gut feeling before I start believing he had anything to do with springing him from jail, or getting Interpol to drop a warrant.

Or, maybe Obama dialed up the US Embassy, who dialed up DynCorp, dropped some names and some money, and had a high-profile Iraqi former minister broken out of prison and flown to the States in exchange for past or future political favours. This is an exciting theory, but it does not yet have much evidence behind it.

I'm not drawing any lines yet, but it's interesting to plot the patterns to see trends.

... and what trends you see depend heavily on what points you plot.

There is a difference between calling you a "drunken hog" and saying you are gobbling up the BS being fed to you like a "drunken hog". It's called a "simile" and the only disparagement to you would be that I think you have your BS blinders on again.

Ah. Perhaps you find your colourful, folksy simile to be entirely appropriate. I think you're being insulting. But, in any case, Mav has asked us to tone it down.

Or, rather "systematic doubt and continual testing". It is not, "relying on only the facts" as you characterize it.

There are quotation marks around "relying on only the facts". I don't recall saying that, but who knows. Maybe I did somewhere. The point I emphasized was evidence. We should stick close to what can be demonstrated, be critical of how we know what we know, and be careful not to be led too far into hypothesizing about what might conceivably be true. You never know where your next few data points might land, and if you get wrapped up in looking at "patterns", you tend to interpret new information to confirm old theories. I am as guilty of this as anyone, but it's something to fight against.

Well, it's vague what is an impeachable offense, and only Congress can decide that. I would hold that any one who demeans the Office of President with such a scandal may be impeached. It depends on the circumstances.

And I would hold that this is pointless prudery and political point-scoring, if what "demeans" the Office of the President is a private matter and has no relationship to the execution of the President's duties. However, this is obviously a topic for a different thread, perhaps one circa 1998, so I'll leave it be from here on out.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Money now donated to charity. Politics in Chicago is ugly business, and while Obama has distanced himself from it admirably, it is very difficult to escape Rezko money. Obama is far from the only person who has taken it over the years, and he has a fairly reasonable argument that, as a political neophyte befriended by Rezko, he was not aware of the extent of his shady dealings.

Hmmm, distanced himself admirably. You are very unbiased.

First, none of this was "under the table". Everything done in this deal by Obama and Rezko is public knowledge. Second, while it is stupid to associate oneself with Rezko, this transaction does not appear to be graft. They each bought one half of a property being split. Later, Obama wanted to expand his property to encompass 1/6th of Rezko's lot. The formula appraised value was $40,500, but Obama thought it fair that he paid him 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it, since it was 1/6th of the lot ($104,500, from $625,000). Maybe that's $60,000 of graft. Or maybe Obama was just being fair to his neighbor. Would it not be strange that, rather than Rezko paying Obama for political favors, this would be Obama paying Rezko?

Yeah, whatever. And then rainbow unicorns danced while sugar plum fairies planted lollipop trees on Obama's new estate.

"Friends" is too strong. Obama used "guy that lives in my neighborhood." He apparently once hosted an appearance by Obama in 1996, during his state senate race. Ayers is a major fixture in the Chicago liberal academic scene, and a minor encounter with him is not news.

I agree that Ayers is probably a red herring. But, I'm wary and suspicious as you know.

His "friend" certainly doesn't seem very impressed with him these days. As with very nearly all American politicians, Obama has sold his ability to make any but the lamest criticisms of Israel to purchase national security creed. Par for the course, but it doesn't really endear him to Ali Abunimah. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml He also seems to be saying he just encountered him a handful of times at various lectures and dos, which would make him an aquaintance, not a "friend."

There is another article I cannot find which details more. I'll accept they are acquaintances, and ran into each other socially in Chicago a few dozen times.

So, moral of the story, never elect anyone who might be construed as a former Muslim president. You might piss off Bin Laden, and that would somehow be bad.

No, that is not the moral of the story. The moral of the story is that you will never find the Presidential candidate who is acceptable to extremists. The question I have is how will Obama weather the criticism and to what level of appeasement will he stoop to try to win the hearts and minds of the world to end the "war on terror"?

[Jester]

Hmmm, distanced himself admirably. You are very unbiased.

He severed his connections to Rezko, denounced him, and gave most of the money he recieved from him to charity. What should I say, that he slimily slunk away into his dank hole?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

What should I say . . . ?

I think what you should say should be based on what is going on. You have been defending Obama throughout this thread as if he were on trial for crimes. If that were the case, then, yes, all the evidence is circumstantial. There is nothing concrete on which to find him guilty. Your arguments for *legal* innocence would be valid.

But the case is that Obama is not in a criminal trial, he is running for office. It is not a case of "in justice, I must accept his innocence" but one of "does he appear to be worthy of my trust and my vote." The situation is different, and so the standards are different. Although you have arguments dismissing many of the points made against Obama, particularly on his relationships, you do not deny the existence of the incidents. Each individually may be overlooked, but cumulatively they have more weight. Ultimately, one *must* answer the question of just who Obama is. And that answer can only come from weighing all the factors, including those factors that are damning on the surface.

We are down to the final few months in this campaign. We are down to the final two candidates. As the last eight years have shown, a poor decision is a disaster for the nation. Blindly defending Obama because you are against the Republicans is not intelligent thinking. It is simple prejudice.

As for me, I'm still willing to be convinced. I think I represent a large portion of the thinking American public (which may be a greater group than the Canadians and Europeans give us credit for, although after eight years of Shrub, I can see the rational). If, in the final analysis, Obama fails to make the grade, then I'll vote McClain, damning the NDP all the way.

--Pete

[Jester]

Hi,
I think what you should say should be based on what is going on. You have been defending Obama throughout this thread as if he were on trial for crimes. If that were the case, then, yes, all the evidence is circumstantial. There is nothing concrete on which to find him guilty. Your arguments for *legal* innocence would be valid.

But the case is that Obama is not in a criminal trial, he is running for office. It is not a case of "in justice, I must accept his innocence" but one of "does he appear to be worthy of my trust and my vote." The situation is different, and so the standards are different. Although you have arguments dismissing many of the points made against Obama, particularly on his relationships, you do not deny the existence of the incidents. Each individually may be overlooked, but cumulatively they have more weight. Ultimately, one *must* answer the question of just who Obama is. And that answer can only come from weighing all the factors, including those factors that are damning on the surface.

We are down to the final few months in this campaign. We are down to the final two candidates. As the last eight years have shown, a poor decision is a disaster for the nation. Blindly defending Obama because you are against the Republicans is not intelligent thinking. It is simple prejudice.

As for me, I'm still willing to be convinced. I think I represent a large portion of the thinking American public (which may be a greater group than the Canadians and Europeans give us credit for, although after eight years of Shrub, I can see the rational). If, in the final analysis, Obama fails to make the grade, then I'll vote McClain, damning the NDP all the way.

--Pete

This is fair. By all means, subject Obama, and McCain, to a careful scrutiny, and listen to what they have to say about it all. Neither is a saint, although there are plenty on both sides willing to claim their candidate will smell like roses after death. If Obama doesn't survive the process, so be it. I like to think I am not blindly defensive of Obama, nor blindly critical of McCain, although my preference for the one over the other is clear. We shall see where that goes as the campaign evolves.

However, politics continues as usual, and every type of excrement that might possibly stick to a candidate will be thrown with full force by people who neither know nor care whether it is correct, only that it appears to be damning on the surface, because that is all they need. So, while I obviously don't have to tell you this, great care has to be taken in evaluating what is dredged up, because you can no more trust the good faith of the politicos, journalists and surrogates than you can of the candidates themselves.

My impression is that Obama is someone who is trying to be honest and make a difference, but who is also ambitious, and who swam in the murky waters of Chicago poltics. You meet people there, you even befriend people, who are not what they seem, who collect politicians like postage stamps, and who are ultimately toxic. How much did he know about Rezko? We can't tell. How much could he have known, or should he have known? Also difficult. Those are the questions that need answering if one is going to come up with a personal judgement about Obama, and all I have is an impression, not anything I'd care to base a sound judgement on.

McCain has been through this particular ringer before, and will probably have to endure it again in this election. His response is history by now, although it is interesting that his tactics then were very similar to Obama's now. But he survived being tangled up with Keating, and I suspect Obama will survive Rezko.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Also interesting that Alsammarae appears to have a similar pattern to Rezko of donating to everyone to hedge his bets. So long as we're asking hypothetical questions, perhaps he has more friends than just an old Chicago political insider?

It seems like a scheme to rip off the American tax payers for $2.5 billion dollars, then use the money to buy influence with top officials and key corporations. America gives billions to Iraq, Alsammarae embezzles the money, Iraq convicts him, America helps him to escape, Alsammarae buys off politicians with stolen money. I smell a rat.