Religious Resignation

[--Pete]

Hi,

The only thing she pulls out of any orifice that is of any worth ought not be flushed, as it clogs the latrines. I'll be happy to see her going back to being a loud mouthed Senator from New York. She wears that well, and New York bloody well deserves her.

Damned forum ate my post and I'm just not up to recreating it, so, short version.

I like Obama if the campaign trail guy is the real guy. I'm afraid that may not be the case.

I don't like Hillary, but I think she'd be better for the country than McCain.

I think McCain is the best human of the three, by far. But I can't really support his politics on the economy or the wars.

So, my picks in order:
Obama the uniter
Hillary
McCain
Obama the divider

Now it's up to the DNP and time to shake the list down.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,

Thank you for the "Short Version" I often say "TOO MANY WORDS" here is my short version. :P

I like Obama :wub:
I don't like Hillary/Bill
I don't like Obama + Hillary :angry:
I think McCain is ok :whistling:
ps: Keep Religion out of Politics & use Smilies in place of words :D

Damned forum ate my post and I'm just not up to recreating it, so, short version.
I like Obama if the campaign trail guy is the real guy. I'm afraid that may not be the case.
I don't like Hillary, but I think she'd be better for the country than McCain.
I think McCain is the best human of the three, by far. But I can't really support his politics on the economy or the wars.

So, my picks in order:
Obama the uniter
Hillary
McCain
Obama the divider

Now it's up to the DNP and time to shake the list down.
--Pete

[eppie]

The consensus among whom? Euortrash? In 2000, you didn't know what a neocon was.
If you choose to play "Politics for Idiots" I recommend you get a helmet.

I can't tell you how stupid that statement is. You seem to associate "Christianity" with "a core American voting bloc." Try this statement: used a predominantly Christian voting block for political advantage. Same as Bobby Kennedy trying to use the Black vote in 1968. Politics as usual.

Christianity will be around a long time after the neocons have buried themselves deep in the political scrapyard, along with the Marxists, and a few other political movements.

Do us all a favor, before you reach voting age: go play in the Autobahn at rush hour.

Occhi

My God, are you really ignorant, or are you just for fun trying to not understand my post?.
The world is bigger than the USA, when I say hijacked christianity I don't mean the whole religion, I mean creating an atmosphere in which you connect being a good christian and patriot with voting for a certain party/candidate. (The US doesn't even officially exist...it is not in the bible at least):)
And as a reply to Kandrathe : I am not sure that statistic takes into account the grade of religious, in many western countries people that are asked say they are religious even if they never go to church, or behave in way the bible tells them. I am talking about the more fanatic ones. And before getting into a discussion about fanaticness. I think the Bush administration succesfully pulled 10% (maybe more) of voters to the GOP because of their religious and patriotic claims.

Back to Occhi: O and for the swearing; I dn't know who you want to impress but I am dutch and not like you from texas (you know where it is allright to keep women and children prisoner to procreate (because it is religion) but where every half swear on TV is beeped away), so if you want to make a statement through swearing you have to come up with more than that.
However, I suggest you stop behaving like this and look at your signature before posting again.

[Occhidiangela]

David Duke believes that Whites are inherently superior to Blacks, that the nation should be segregated along racial lines, that Judaism is a mental illness, and that Black people are no better than animals.

Rev. Wright argues that racism is abhorrent, that no race is superior to another, that historical racial divisions should be ended, and that God loves all people.

I don't think you've paid much attention to what Wright's been saying. Llike Duke, he uses the race card as a political blade. That's the point I am trying to make here, that you choose to ignore.

He's a loudmouth. He's dead wrong about a whole range of subjects, and is even willing to flirt with strange and outdated racial theories about "different ways of thinking". But he's not David Duke, he's not the black equivalent of the Nazis, and I find it incomprehensible that otherwise reasonable people are making these comparisons.

Then get out of your box. Your inability to see beyond the Nazi paradigm is part of the neocon rhetorical weakness. Please don't fall into that trap yourself. You can be a White Nationalist or a Klansman without being a Nazi. Try to understand that.

The worst that can be said of him is that he turns a blind eye to the dark side of Louis Farrakhan, which, while more than enough to sour me on him, does not turn him into the Grand Wizard of a black KKK.

That's the worst you will say about him. That isn't the worst problem with his decades out of date political rhetoric. That Trinity is a church that is also about empowerment, another critical element to its success, is sadly overshadowed by the message of racialism. If you bother to go to the home page of that church, which I did over a year ago when I first heard of it, you will find an interesting, almost Garveyesque, Afrocentrism that only a blind man will not recognize as racialist in character.

It's for the best that Obama has left the church, as most of America seems to think the same way as we have seen on this board, that a radical black church is basically just the mirror image of the Nazis, or of the KKK, or whatever.

Nope. I use Duke as an example of an American politician who used, and now uses race (since he's basically placed himself beyond the pale in terms of politics (pun intended)) as a political weapon or tool. Your decision not to grasp that is unfortunate. The Nazis have nothing to do with it.

That's an anchor no politician can afford not to cut. But I think there is a serious perspective problem, both in the US generally, and on this board specifically.

I'd say the problem here, Jester, is a Canadian demonstrating once again a failure to grasp American politics. You are the one trying to shoehorn the Nazi into the conversation, and in doing so only display another measure of laziness or ignorance. I'll go with intellectually lazy, since you tend to be quick on the uptake.

David Duke: a racist, and a racialist, for sure. A Nazi? No. An anti-Semite: yeah, I think so. Learn a new term: White Nationalist. It's what a particular sector, small as I understand it, of American political opinion calls itself. They seem to be a lot more libertarian, and anarchist, than socialist or national socialist in political leanings. I've been trying to discern their influence on American political life since I got back from the desert. I am still worried that another Tim McVeigh will arise, or a network of them, influenced by a certain feeling of betrayal or disgust for the American political class (party being irrelevant to that crowd) and being pissed off ex soldiers, will be motivated to pull a stunt similar to what McVeigh pulled. In trying to figure out where that sentiment comes from, I stumbled across the White Nationalist sentiment. It is related to Paleoconservatism, but has a considerably more vicious core to it. The WNs give lip service to the political idea that the Constitution supported the secession of the South, that the Fourteenth Amendment is null and void, that the 16th was fraudulently based, and a whole lot else that is peculiarily American in character. Socialism and National Socialism are distinctly European mindsets, and creations, as is and was Fascism. What Duke and the various strains of WN are all about is very much made in America. (No dodging that one.)

Not all racists, and not all racialists, are Nazis. See Farakhan for a supberb example.

Godwin ought to be getting tired, the way he's overused.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

And as a reply to Kandrathe : I am not sure that statistic takes into account the grade of religious, in many western countries people that are asked say they are religious even if they never go to church, or behave in way the bible tells them. I am talking about the more fanatic ones. And before getting into a discussion about fanaticness. I think the Bush administration succesfully pulled 10% (maybe more) of voters to the GOP because of their religious and patriotic claims.

Yes, maybe a 10% bloc, but one that would have voted for him anyway. It is the same with Democrats pandering to the greens, gays, and illegal aliens.

Unfortunately these days we have both parties rushing to the middle, creating the muddled politics we have today. Many people who voted for Bill were upset with some of his more conservative military and economic decisions, and many people who voted for Bush feel he sold out on many issues like limited government, deficit spending, immigration reform, nation building, etc. McCain only shifts further centrist than Bush. Obama on the other hand is quite possibly the most socialist candidate to be fielded by Democrats since George McGovern. Although with hardly any track record in his home state legislature, and 1/2 a term as a US senator his "time for a change" rhetoric is a bit of a mystery when it comes to policy implementation. Whenever you have politicians calling for change, its time to hunker down and hide your wallet.

[Occhidiangela]

My God, are you really ignorant, or are you just for fun trying to not understand my post?.

No to both.

The world is bigger than the USA,

NO kidding, I've seen quite a bit of it. I'd consider seeing more but quite frankly, I'm good and damned tired of moving, don't care for air travel anymore (tired of being treated like a sheep and a criminal on my dime) and at the moment, not interested in wasting my dollars on anyone outside my homeland. My dreams of one day seeing India, Kashmir, taking my wife to Turkey, going to Bali for a vacation, and finally getting to Chile are on indefinite hold. Now that my sister no longer lives in France, I'll not travel there again. Ireland is pretty much the only remaining part of Europe I have a burning desire to see before I die.

say hijacked christianity I don't mean the whole religion, I mean creating an atmosphere in which you connect being a good christian and patriot with voting for a certain party/candidate.

Then say what you mean and stop using asinine sound bytes created by someone else. Why you consider that particular association odius says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about the GOP in America. Politics is about group identity, and creating the symbol of a large enough "we" do out vote "they" when an election arises. Oh, wait, there are no political parties in Europe *rolls eyes so hard forehead cracks* so you'd have no idea how voting blocs are formed.

(The US doesn't even officially exist...it is not in the bible at least):)

Back to dumbacity again, right on schedule.

And as a reply to Kandrathe : I am not sure that statistic takes into account the grade of religious, in many western countries people that are asked say they are religious even if they never go to church, or behave in way the bible tells them. I am talking about the more fanatic ones. And before getting into a discussion about fanaticness. I think the Bush administration succesfully pulled 10% (maybe more) of voters to the GOP because of their religious and patriotic claims.

FWIW: last I checked, the Evangelical voting bloc was estimated at 15-20%, but once again, the depth of religious practice varies greatly here, as does the variation between the hundreds of sects and denominations in America. Example: the Episcopalian Chruch seems to have had a schism over the ordination of some homosexual clergymen (about a year and a half ago). They are a lot more old school/European style Christianity than the Pentacostals and Evangelicals.

Back to Occhi: O and for the swearing; I dn't know who you want to impress but I am dutch and not like you from texas (you know where it is allright to keep women and children prisoner to procreate (because it is religion)

That'll cost you, boy.

but where every half swear on TV is beeped away), so if you want to make a statement through swearing you have to come up with more than that.

When you achieve coherence, try again.

However, I suggest you stop behaving like this and look at your signature before posting again.

Suggestion noted and flushed down the loo, so it can join its brothers.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Whenever you have politicians calling for change, its time to hunker down and hide your wallet.

They want your bills, not your change.:P

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I like Obama if the campaign trail guy is the real guy. I'm afraid that may not be the case.

I don't like Hillary, but I think she'd be better for the country than McCain.

I think McCain is the best human of the three, by far. But I can't really support his politics on the economy or the wars.

So, my picks in order:
Obama the uniter
Hillary
McCain
Obama the divider

Now it's up to the DNP and time to shake the list down.

--Pete

McCain's window of opportunity, his sweet spot, was 2000. He blew it. I don't think he's got a snowball's chance in Hell to win in November. He carries the GOP stain on his tie. Not sure if it's a blood stain or an oil stain, but he can't scrub it off. I don't see anyone in the GOP who he can pick as VP who'll perk up his platform, or his image. His support for the war, and continued troop presence in Iraq, will sink him, and IMO is somewhat related to his bitterness over how Viet Nam turned out, with America cutting its losses and letting the blood flow. Letting the blood flow in the short term in Iraq seems to be an option few people are seriously considering. If the Kurds play their cards right, the Sunnah and Shia will blood themselves horrifically, and they'll come out on top. Not a bad outcome.

Hillary is a bigger divider than either McCain or Obama. She's still trapped, mentally, in about 1969, in a similar but different way than McCain. I have little use for anyone stuck in that mindset. I've retained a small share of my Cold War thinking, with an eye to China, but have shed most of it.



Obama is a complete cypher to me, in terms of what he's really about other than getting elected. He's an open book, which means that a whole host of special interest groups, think tanks, and card carrying smart guys are going to trip over themselves to get into his inner circle. Who he brings with him to the show is still being worked out. As I understand it, he pays attention to University of Chicago economists.

He speaks well, though he seems never to have heard a note of his own voice he didn't like. Barry needs to learn what the word "concise" means. He strikes me as quite intelligent. While I like that, he risks "paralysis via analysis" as a weakness.

I took the time some months ago to watch his talk at Trinity about the need to get Americans who are religious, and who aren't, to establish more common ground than deeper border ditches. It made sense to me. It's the opposite of what Fallwell and his ilk tried to achieve in their reactionary political response to humanism.

I quite frankly agree with his suggestion that America talk, open more dialogue, with Iran. The attitude among Bush and his crowd of "we can't talk to these people" and "we won't talk to these people" pisses me off to no end. There was a golden window of opportunity in 2001-2004, to finesse some of the low level contacts we had with Iran into a warming of the cold war between us that began when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over after the Islamic Revolution. That window has been slammed shut, and a decent part of the blame resides squarely in Washington. Teheran hasn't helped its own case lately. (See the IAEA and Iran here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/weekin...broad.html )

At least Obama wants to get back to dealing with Iran on a more substantive level. They are the Big Dog in the Persian Gulf. It is idiotic not to deal with them. My biggest only worry is that he's got a Bill Clintonesque idea about how important it is for Americans to wear blue helmets.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

... I quite frankly agree with his suggestion that America talk, open more dialogue, with Iran. The attitude among Bush and his crowd of "we can't talk to these people" and "we won't talk to these people" pisses me off to no end. There was a golden window of opportunity in 2001-2004, to finesse some of the low level contacts we had with Iran into a warming of the cold war between us that began when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over after the Islamic Revolution. That window has been slammed shut, and a decent part of the blame resides squarely in Washington. Teheran hasn't helped its own case lately. (See the IAEA and Iran here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/weekin...broad.html )

At least Obama wants to get back to dealing with Iran on a more substantive level. They are the Big Dog in the Persian Gulf. It is idiotic not to deal with them. My biggest only worry is that he's got a Bill Clintonesque idea about how important it is for Americans to wear blue helmets.

Occhi

I fear it is the Barbary Pirates all over again, but this time with the nuclear arsenal. Europe will be content to continue to pay the black mail. Paying the black mail has been our only solution to North Korea.

Here is the oh so negotiable Iranian president spouting off today "I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said. "Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started," the hard-line president said.

Oh, boy! I hope they get nukes soon!

[Jester]

Nope. I use Duke as an example of an American politician who used, and now uses race (since he's basically placed himself beyond the pale in terms of politics (pun intended)) as a political weapon or tool. Your decision not to grasp that is unfortunate. The Nazis have nothing to do with it.

I'd say the problem here, Jester, is a Canadian demonstrating once again a failure to grasp American politics. You are the one trying to shoehorn the Nazi into the conversation, and in doing so only display another measure of laziness or ignorance. I'll go with intellectually lazy, since you tend to be quick on the uptake.

Pete said: "That 'church', if it were white, would have eagles with swastikas in their talons on either side of the cross and would be denounced for racism."

Hm. What group is symbolized by Eagles and Swastikas? Oh, right. The Nazis.

And in the previous thread on this topic, who was Kandrathe dragging out for comparison? Oh, right. Hitler. (And Jim Jones, for good measure.)

And who are you bringing out? David Duke, famed Holocaust denier who believes Hitler was a great guy for fighting the interational Jewish-Communist conspiracy.

Yeah, I'm really just trying to shoehorn the Nazis in here. Who knows where kooky old Jester gets these nutty ideas? Must just be a typical Canadian failure to comprehend American politics.

-Jester

Afterthought: Perhaps, with the most charity I can muster, one could day that David Duke is merely a Neo-Nazi. If that's the argument, then fine, you're comparing Wright to *Neo-Nazis*, not Nazis proper. Forgive me if I do not find this to be much closer to the mark.

[kandrathe]

What group is symbolized by Eagles and Swastikas?

Was it the US Naval Barracks at San Diego? Eagles, and Anchors too I suspect.

[eppie]

Must just be a typical Canadian failure to comprehend American politics.

Nope not typical Canadian, me and my fellow eurotrash' also have comprehension problems.:D

[eppie]

.....how do you post pictures?

edited because of inability to post a picture...

[kandrathe]

.....how do you post pictures?

edited because of inability to post a picture...

{img}http://www.imageplace.org/images/myimage.jpg{/img} <-- changing { for [

[eppie]

{img}http://www.imageplace.org/images/myimage.jpg{/img} <-- changing { for [

Tried that but it says I can't post a ......





yes there it is. Thanks,

it was time for a picture of a cat...even though he looks like a nazi.

[kandrathe]

Tried that but it says I can't post a
[img] http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/kitl...s/kitler763.jpg [img]
[url=http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigboardbest.pl?763:3]

<strike>It needs to be a .gif I guess</strike>, and the end tag has a slash in it. Heil Kitler!

[eppie]

It needs to be a .gif I guess, and the end tag has a slash in it.

I think you replied me during one of my 7 edit tries. :huh:

It was indeed the slash that I missed.

[Occhidiangela]

Pete said: "That 'church', if it were white, would have eagles with swastikas in their talons on either side of the cross and would be denounced for racism."

Hm. What group is symbolized by Eagles and Swastikas? Oh, right. The Nazis.

And in the previous thread on this topic, who was Kandrathe dragging out for comparison? Oh, right. Hitler. (And Jim Jones, for good measure.)

And who are you bringing out? David Duke, famed Holocaust denier who believes Hitler was a great guy for fighting the interational Jewish-Communist conspiracy.

Yeah, I'm really just trying to shoehorn the Nazis in here. Who knows where kooky old Jester gets these nutty ideas? Must just be a typical Canadian failure to comprehend American politics.

-Jester

Afterthought: Perhaps, with the most charity I can muster, one could day that David Duke is merely a Neo-Nazi. If that's the argument, then fine, you're comparing Wright to *Neo-Nazis*, not Nazis proper. Forgive me if I do not find this to be much closer to the mark.

Clueless much?

You don't have to be a Neo Nazi to hate Jews. The habit of disliking or hating Jews is a very long and distinguished tradition among European nations, and peoples, which sentiment was well exported to America with the immigrants, and for that matter, Canada, and picked up by the blacks of New York as nicely demonstrated by Jesse Jackson's infamous "Hymie Town" sound byte.

I'll say it again, slowly: you don't have to be a Nazi to hate Jews. WHether you choose to hate Jews for any reason is of course another matter, and worthy of the same introspection one ought to undertake if one chooses to hate blacks, Asians, or Americans as a group.

Or are all Arabs Nazis?

Are the leaders of Iran Nazis?

Are the leadership if Hamas Nazis?

Are you getting my point, or will you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "lalalalalalala" until you convince yourself that disliking or hating Jews = Nazi?

Pete's reference to nationalism was far more intelligently made than you leaping, incorrectly, on Duke as NAZI versus what he is: a White Nationalist. Here is another clue for you. German Nazis or at least some of the more infamous of that gang, tended to be of a Catholic strain, if they were at all religiously inclined, whereas Klansmen, WN's, and the Christian Identity crowd tend to be of various Protestant extractions. But even that is an oversimplification.

Let the Nazis rot in the hell of history that they created for themselves. There are plenty of other haters running amok who are splendidly qualified for examniation and wariness, or even attack, none of whom necessarily need to be labeled Nazi due to your intellectual laziness.

Is a French anti Semite, a French Nationalist, a Nazi?

Is a Russian anti Semite/Russian Nationalist a Nazi?

Why don't you refer to the Hutus as Nazis? They hated their Tutsi countrymen with a vigor and passion equal to or greater than Hitler's crowd did the Jews, they just weren't as organized, nor as technically gifted, to implement their desired extermination in a time scale that the Final Solution policy attempted, and failed, to achieve.

No, Jester, I cannot acceopt your lame defense of a careless Godwin.

Get over the Germans, already, there are plenty of others to stand as exemplars of hating their fellow man, or just a small subset of their fellow man.

Occhi

[Jester]

Short version:

Are neo-nazis nazis?

Because if you don't think David Duke is a Neo-Nazi, then I don't even know where to start.

-Jester

Edit: Clarity.

Further edit: Well, okay, if I did have to start, I might start here:



But, of course, you'd have to be *clueless* to think that guy with the armband with a Swastika on it is a Nazi. That'd just be some serious kinda ignorant.

[kandrathe]

Short version: Are neo-nazis nazis? Because if you don't think David Duke is a Neo-Nazi, then I don't even know where to start.

Duke is a Neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazi, are a type of Nazi (as long as they believe in Fascism) and more to the point Racist. Does Duke's hate speech result in a positive, non-violent future? I'd say no.

The point that I was making with Wright, and I believe Pete and Occhi are trying to make is that his words if transmogrified into White on Black speech would sound exactly like Duke. Now, Duke is a racist, Nazi, SOB. But, the part that is important is the racist part. The same kind of black racism exemplified by the "Hymie Town" comments of Jesse Jackson. Is Wright a racist? I'd say yes.

My other prior point you refused to see, was that for a religious leader to diverge from the accepted doctrine of his denomination is something that people like Jim Jones did. I'm not implying that Wright is going to haul off his congregation to a Kool Aid party in Guyana, just that its an indication of fringe beyond the fringe when you do that type of thing. By definition, he is a heretic to protestantism, but is he dangerous? I'd say no.

Sometimes fringe is a good thing, when its a new movement towards a better future (American Revolution). Do you really think the "anti-Whitey" rhetoric of Wright is going to result in a positive, non-violent future? I'd again say no.

Back to my original point. Obama used this church for political gain, and denounced it for political gain. You think he's the candidate for change? Because, that is exactly the kind of userous behavior I'd expect from the Clintons. It's all about Obama, and him not facing either the reality of saying "This is who I am, and what I believe", or saying "I really wasn't a believer in either Wright's politics or his heretical Christianity". So which is it Jester?