Author Topic: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!  (Read 80893 times)

Offline DamonO

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #135 on: March 29, 2008, 09:36:54 am »
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

Offline karaszero

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
    • View Profile
    • karaszero
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #136 on: March 29, 2008, 10:58:49 am »
Hillary is not a lock for the VP either many people are wondering if NY mayor Bloomberg would be interested in VP or a cabinet level position

Offline DamonO

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #137 on: March 29, 2008, 11:19:02 am »
Hillary is not a lock for the VP either many people are wondering if NY mayor Bloomberg would be interested in VP or a cabinet level position

I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that Bloomberg won't get a VP slot.  He's not even a Democrat, he's an independent.  Plus, he endorsed Bush in 2004.  They shouldn't even give him a position leveling cabinets, much less a cabinet level position.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #138 on: March 29, 2008, 01:56:53 pm »
i don't want another clinton near that chair. Not in my lifetime. Chelsea can run once I'm dead. That should be sufficient time to stop the dynasty train.
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline sinjection

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #139 on: March 29, 2008, 06:48:29 pm »
Redjack, don't take this personally, but I didn't even bother to read your latest response to me. Your psuedo-sophisticated sophistry bores me. Your thinly-veiled antisemitic attitude appalls me.

The United States bears its fair share of the responsibility for the Holocaust. This, you cannot deny. I have provided firm evidence that the Allies knew of the existence of the death camps and what was transpiring in those camps when all you can do is parrot the government's lie that "they did not know" and that their intelligence was "fragmented". The Allies knew as early as 1941 and very likely, as early as 1939 shortly after the camps were up and running, that nazis were murdering Jews and others in those camps. When faced with irrefutable evidence provided them by Soviet liberators of Majdanek, the Allies - probably wanting a means to claim ignorance and deniability - found themselves in alliance with hitler himself when they agreed with him dismissing the Soviet intelligence as "communist propaganda". Today, you probably lap up that lie the same way you cling to your indefensible claim that the Allies didn't know about the camps until the actual Allied liberation of those camps.

Black Americans didn't have to "bang on" anybody's door, Redjack. One of the most oft-repeated cries of the Civil Rights Movement was "The world is watching!" Black Americans didn't have to travel hither and yon with our sad tales of racial persecution in the U.S. If we wanted to emigrate from the land of our birth to escape the persecution, there was always Liberia, the African state created specifically for the progeny of America's former slaves. The world was shrinking even then. We lived in a smaller, more closely connected world than what existed in the late '30's and '40's. The world could see, hear and read about the plight of the black American and our righteous fight for justice and equality and the world was moved in a way they weren't where the Jews were concerned. Possibly taking an example from the Civil Rights Struggle, Desmond Tutu and those fighting the South African white racist apartheid government adopted the same tact, "The world is watching!" In both struggles, the world did its part to help - in its own way - to bring appropriate pressure to bear on those racist institutions effectively weakening U.S. segregation/persecution and destroying the racist nation of rhodesia and the white racist government of South Africa.

In the case of the German and Eastern European Jews, the western world knew what was happening to them and couldn't have cared less. They were only Jews afterall. You haven't disproved anything I've said. There was more at work against the Jews than immigration policies and the machinations of "nation states". There was antisemitism, world-wide antisemitism which polluted the better angels of the heads of national governments and their populace, our United States included. It was in that environment that the Holocaust was allowed to proceed unchecked resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents, Jewish and others. I stand by my statement and none of your long-winded loopy nonsense has budged me an inch.

You weren't debated. You were provided facts in the face of your fallacy. You weren't debated. You were corrected. You said earlier that you didn't bluster, that you were cold. I didn't even feel a hint of a breeze. Your furious flurry of pompous words were mere fluff and foolishness laced with a sense of pathetic entitlement which believes the black American needs something from the white American to make us whole, as if Affirimative Action, Welfare, the "Great Society", the Civil War, the 14th Amendment were as nothing.

If that's all you've got, then you haven't got anything. The United States was directly responsible for the deaths of Anne Frank, her family and those who traveled with them when they were turned away from these shores and from sanctuary. When a suicide victim leaps from a high point, it isn't his ascension to that point that kills him, but it precipitates it. When he leaps, it isn't the falling that kills him, but he has irreversibly taken the action that will lead to his death. The direct cause of death is the impact the victim makes with the ground when he hits it. So, do you blame the ground for the victim's death or the actions the victim took that led to his death? Had the suicide victim turned away and not taken the leap, he wouldn't have been a suicide victim.  When a person is fatally shot, it is the bullet ripping through the body that causes death. I've never seen a bullet stand trial for murder, Redjack. I've never seen the gun from which the bullet was discharged stand trial for murder. It's always the human being whose finger pulled the trigger of the gun which fired the bullet who is charged and stands trial for murder. In turning away those Jews seeking sanctuary in this nation when it was within our immigration quota to accept them, we were in essence the "high point". When the Jews returned to Europe, they "impacted" with a murderous nazi regime which caused their deaths, deaths that need not have happened had the U.S. provided those victims sanctuary.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 08:48:15 pm by sinjection »
Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther IS THE Black Panther

Offline sinjection

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #140 on: March 29, 2008, 07:02:27 pm »
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.
Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther IS THE Black Panther

Offline Catch22

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3110
  • You gots to have vision, Willie!
    • View Profile
    • PapiCatch22's Urban Suite
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #141 on: March 29, 2008, 07:22:50 pm »
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.


That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 

Offline sinjection

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #142 on: March 29, 2008, 07:38:01 pm »
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.

That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 

I would love to be able to agree with you, Catch...but I just keep having these "Tom Bradley effect" flashbacks. Remember, Tom Bradley was immensely popular in California. During his gubernatorial run against George Du...there is no way I'll be able to spell that man's name without looking it up...many white Californians swore that Tom Bradley was their choice and pledged to vote for him. As it turns out, they did not. Later, following to the election, two white males who actually worked for the Bradley campaign admitted that when they were alone in the voting booth and faced with the two choices for California's next governor, there was no way they could bring themselves to vote for a black man over a white man. Recently, PA. Governor Rendell said that in his state anyway, many whites are not ready to vote for a black man for high office in explaining why he was able to defeat Rep. challenger Lynn Swann, the very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler wide receiver, in their campaign.

I say again, I'd love to be able to agree with you and see with my own eyes, the nomination go to Obama. At this point however, I just can't see it. And I wonder....who had more blacks in their administrative Cabinet, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice certainly held more significant offices in the Bush administration than Ron Brown held in the Clinton administration.
Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther IS THE Black Panther

Offline Mastrmynd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8172
  • Check my new site www.top20takeover.VVCRadio.com
    • View Profile
    • http://arvellpoe.atspace.com/
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #143 on: March 29, 2008, 07:38:36 pm »
this is a huge decision for the superdelegates.
Get some sleep muthasuckas!
hahahahha


Listen to my entertaining radio show, "The Takeover: Top 20 Countdown" at www.top20takeover.VVCRadio.com.

Right on to the real and death to the fakers!  Peace out!

Offline sinjection

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #144 on: March 29, 2008, 07:52:34 pm »
this is a huge decision for the superdelegates.
Get some sleep muthasuckas!
hahahahha

Most of them are already sleepwalking, MM  :)

Howard Dean is clueless, a coward or both.

Al Gore? He ain't goin' anywhere NEAR this mess.
Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther IS THE Black Panther

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #145 on: March 29, 2008, 08:07:35 pm »
Getting back to Rev. Wright (correct spelling: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.), I thought this opinion piece from Jonetta Rose Barras was insightful.


"Wright" ... OK, got it.  I could say that I saw it somewhere spelled "Write" and just picked that up ... but the truth is, I was always the first kid to drop out of the spelling bee.   :-[

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #146 on: March 29, 2008, 08:17:29 pm »
It's the idea that Obama (or any of other candidates for that matter) would do anything to reverse the pro-Israel trend of the last 25-odd years that I find silly.

Once in office, a President certainly could reverse the (so-called) "pro-Israel" position.  He would just couch it in politically correct terms, provide justifications, and so on.  Many of the extreme Left and extreme Right would cheer (both those elements have more in common that some are willing to admit).  As it is the U.S. puts pressure on Israel all the time, and has the clout to do so.  The degree and form of pressure varies from administration to administration. 

There may also be a time in the not-too-distant future when Israel will be forced to defend herself against a devastating external threat ... and the extent to which the U.S. supports, is neutral or overtly undermines that effort will have a direct impact on the survival of Israel as a nation (not to mention the long-term survival of her population).

Offline sinjection

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #147 on: March 29, 2008, 08:19:52 pm »
So, I peeked. As I thought, it really wasn't worth my time and effort to do so.

My "opinion" isn't. It's what actually happened. Yours is based on a jaundiced and incoherent view of the facts as well as the conflation of multiple factors into an unsupported pattern.  yeah. We did save the f*cking world and there's nothing shrill about saying so.

 ;D

It wasn't "what" you said that was shrill. It was the shrill way you said it. "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD!"

...the "f*cking world. The shrill quality of using all caps as if you were making some grand pronouncement and "f*cking world"?, that could be a good thing (in a sexy sort of way for those of us who like having sex) or a bad thing, (you called the world a mean name).

And in my mind's eye, all I could see is you clutching your naps in your hands - that is if you have naps, if not, slapping your bald head - and jumping up and down hysterically.

I find that image both shrill and amusing  ;)

And "conflated/unsupported pattern" my big toe. The "factors" I provided were presented in chronological order from 1938 - 1942 and absolutely gave proof to the type of antisemitic attitudes which influenced the opinions of nation leaders and citizens - the U.S. in particular - and kept the Jewish people seeking to escape the holocaust vulnerable and without hope of rescue.

Furthermore, the U.S. didn't "save the procreating world". The U.S., her Allies and the very significant efforts of the Soviet Red Army brought this terrible war to an end. If the U.S. had saved "the procreating world", there wouldn't have been any need for the U.S. to submit to the carving up of "the procreating world" between ourselves, our Allies and a national entity the U.S. didn't trust or even like. Patton wanted to go to war with the Soviets right then and there. Had the U.S. saved "the procreating world" on its own, the U.S. could have told the Soviets to take a hike. They didn't do that because the couldn't do that. Understand?

And now, our discourse is at an end. It's gone on far too long and I've since forgotten the point I'd intended to make in response to Mike's post concerning Hamas. Now I must retrace my steps, re-read that post and hopefully, remember the reply that I'd intended to make.

 

« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 08:42:27 pm by sinjection »
Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther IS THE Black Panther

Offline DamonO

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #148 on: March 29, 2008, 10:29:51 pm »
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.

That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 

I would love to be able to agree with you, Catch...but I just keep having these "Tom Bradley effect" flashbacks. Remember, Tom Bradley was immensely popular in California. During his gubernatorial run against George Du...there is no way I'll be able to spell that man's name without looking it up...many white Californians swore that Tom Bradley was their choice and pledged to vote for him. As it turns out, they did not. Later, following to the election, two white males who actually worked for the Bradley campaign admitted that when they were alone in the voting booth and faced with the two choices for California's next governor, there was no way they could bring themselves to vote for a black man over a white man. Recently, PA. Governor Rendell said that in his state anyway, many whites are not ready to vote for a black man for high office in explaining why he was able to defeat Rep. challenger Lynn Swann, the very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler wide receiver, in their campaign.

I say again, I'd love to be able to agree with you and see with my own eyes, the nomination go to Obama. At this point however, I just can't see it. And I wonder....who had more blacks in their administrative Cabinet, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice certainly held more significant offices in the Bush administration than Ron Brown held in the Clinton administration.

Thing is, Powell was so marginalized in the Bush Administration that he didn't even stick around for the second term.  He so disillusioned with the GOP, that he's been advising Obama on foreign policy, and when asked point blank if he'd vote for the GOP nominee in November, Powell's only response was that he'd vote for who he felt the best candidate was.  That should tell you how he felt he was treated by that group.

As for Condoleezza Rice, the only reason she's still around is because she's a Bush bootlicker who'll only tell him what he wants to hear.

Lynn Swann may be a popular former Steeler, but he was an awful candidate.  I saw an interview with him prior to the election, and his answer to almost every question was "I don't know."  These were questions about issues he should've had some opinion on.

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
« Reply #149 on: March 29, 2008, 11:06:33 pm »
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia   :P).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...???   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)