Barack Obama’s decision to leave Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago should help him but won’t end the controversy. “It’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will (be) imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles,” Obama said Saturday. But, fairly or not, clips of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright will continue to be replayed and linked to Obama, and Obama will still be dogged with the question of why it took him 20 years to make this decision.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
70 Comments
Controversy? The only ones who seem to care are Republicans and the corporate media. Moving on….
The Obamites will be sticking their fingers in the ears going “la la la la la la”
I wonder how Catholics feel about that last one since he is a Catholic Priest.
The question is, why would you have continued to have been a part of a church whose leaders have continued to preach things which go against your “long-held views, statements and principles?”
Damn, this horse is not only dead, but he has decomposed and now is just a skeleton.
The Republicans will be beating this horse when it has fossilized.
But, once more, Rev. Wright probably did not give the same sermon over and over and over again for twenty years.
Chances are, his views on race hardened over the years and he saw less and less progress in America.
Obama was not in the pews for the most controversial of Wright’s statements.
Leave this poor horse alone.
Boortz nails it. As usual.
“This is oh so simple to understand. Obama joined this church because it was to his political advantage to do so. Trinity was a politically powerful church and Obama needed that political power to get elected. Now in a national election the political power of Trinity doesn’t overcome the negatives … so there goes Obama. We shouldn’t be surprised when a politician uses a church to further his political career. Not surprised, just discouraged.”
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Jeremiah Wright seems to have chastised the wrong americans. He wasn’t supposed to chastise the slave owners. He was supposed to chastise the homosexuals, atheists and drug users. He made slavery the cause of Sep 11 instead of homosexuality. That is the only reason why Jeremiah Wright is anything more than just another wacko preacher. I take that back he has one more reason: a famous ex-parishner.
Each time the Republicans play the newsclip of Rev Wright, the Democrats should play the newsclips of John Hagee and Rod Parsley’s ridiculous statements and put John McCain’s picture in the middle of it.
Let’s not forget that John McCain actively sought out Hagee and Parsley for their endorsements! Isn’t that the same as agreeing with them?
And exactly where does McCain attend church? I’ve never heard that this man even has a church.
I have to wonder, is it worse for Obama to be in a church for 20 years where perhaps Rev Wright was not as radical as he seems to be presently or be like McCain and not in church at all?
But with McCain, no one really knows what the truth is anymore. This man has flip-flopped on every issue and has been pandering to every group out there to get their votes. McCain likes to call himself a maverick but now he is just a sad case of a puppet looking for the next puppet master.
If Obama used his church for political gain, then does that mean each of those Christian Conservative Republicans boasting of their church affiliations were just using their churches for political gain?
If Obama is wrong, so is everyone else that did the same thing.
lucee – not just those two but there were others on the ‘right’ who blame 9/11, Katrina, etc on gays and other ‘moral depravity’. Play them all.
Yeah, that level of political dirty tricks will work.
:roll:
Yeah, that level of political dirty tricks will work.
So we have learned from Rove etc
“Nathaniel” asks –
“…why would you have continued to have been a part of a church whose leaders have continued to preach things which go against your “long-held views, statements and principles?”
First off, someone did the math and determined the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached something like 400,000 minutes of sermons during his tenure at Trinity. Just how many seconds did it take him to say, “…God bless America? Maybe it’s God damn America…” within the context of this nation’s sorry history of slavery, genocide against Native Americans, the Tuskegee syphilis study, an unprovoked war in Iraq based on lies and propaganda…
You didn’t hear that part of the sermon on Faux News, didja, “Nathaniel?”
No, you cast judgment (you like that, don’tcha?) on a seven-second sound bite out of 400,000 thousand minutes of Wright’s sermons.
Invite me to your church, “Nathaniel,” and let me take seven seconds out of context from your pastor’s (or guest pastors’) sermons and hang you on a cross of hypocrisy. Bet I could find one within a couple of weeks. Or my soul would be saved. Either way, it’d be a win-win proposition, right?
But there’s another thing. Some of us go to church for the fellowship, for the opportunities to volunteer for the community (my church buys groceries and sells them at cost to anyone who wants to buy them). We contribute to the community pantry and, when floods damaged a lot of homes last year, we pitched in to help make repairs.
But on Sunday mornings, many of us show up to be challenged. We’re not so shaky in our faith we need only answers; some of us show up for the questions.
It’s significant to me that the slime machine hasn’t been able to find issues to attack Barack Obama directly, and has been reduced to trying to sling mud via some strange guilt-by-association with the neighborhood church he’s attended.
Obama’s decision to resign from Trinity Church of Christ might be skewed as a political ploy. But it also seems to be his attempt to get his fellow church-members out of the mean-spirited micro-scrutiny of outfits such as Faux News.
He’s proven he can handle that scrutiny. But it’s not particularly Christian to subject your friends in the congregation to such abuse.
So what’ll it be, “Nathaniel?” Tell me when to join you at your church. I’ll be there. I’ll even pray (again) that you seek the psychological help I fear you might need.
Jeremiah Wright seems to have chastised the wrong americans. He wasn’t supposed to chastise the slave owners.
————
Hmmm…. We got slave owners?
The Jeremiah Wright thing is just another issue to throw in the election stew. I think it is a large, grissly piece of meat though.
Brownback and Tiahrt go to a religious group that openly admires Hitler, Stalin and Mao but the media ignores it. Obama leaves a mainstream church and that’s supposed to be a controversy. Oh well, I guess I must feel the way the corporate media tells me how to feel.
Maggotpunk,
What religious group would that be?
I say you are a liar.
“It’s significant to me that the slime machine hasn’t been able to find issues to attack Barack Obama directly, and has been reduced to trying to sling mud via some strange guilt-by-association with the neighborhood church he’s attended.”
————–
Well, that is an advantage of being inexperienced with few accomplishments, isn’t it? No one can criticize you for a stand when you haven’t taken any.
Outlander: Did I say that slave owners still exist? If you are going to try the straw man. At least be more clever and try to hide it better.
It’s not so much about Obamas church as it is about his associations and how they affect his political ideology.
You combine the things that go on in his church, his political associations with former leftwing terrorists, and then look at some of the things he has to say in his book about “white people” and you get a view of someone you’re pretty sure you don’t want as President. Unless of course you’re a fan of Che.
“Nathaniel” asks –
“Maggotpunk,
What religious group would that be?”
Read up on Opus Dei, “Nathaniel,” before you decide to cast judgment on “Maggotpunk” with your proclamation:
“I say you are a liar.”
When are you inviting me to your church?
Interesting, the only time the Libs want to fight is when they can disparage other people, stirring up trouble, making accusations, calling names and generally being disruptive.
MonkeyHawk, the newly revised kindler gentler? blogger has tracked down nathan, taunting him and generally trying to provoke an argument.
As for cousin Maggot, well what can I say. If he doesn’t have a reason to start a fight, he’ll make one up. Really cuz, using the old Catholics are Nazi sympathizers thing. That’s tired and old, get a new line.
The scientist Ben throws in a Roveism on a topic that has nothing to do with Rove. Probably how he approaches science as well, quaintly related matters of liberal dogma matched up to his political view of science.
You Libs are really stinkin up the joint today.
Go air yourselves out.
WS,
“Leave this poor horse alone.”
Hey, when you gotta beat something and it’s the only thing you’ve got to beat……….
“Regular” contributes –
“MonkeyHawk, the newly revised kindler gentler? blogger has tracked down nathan, taunting him and generally trying to provoke an argument.”
I asked him to invite me to church.
That’s “taunting?”
Monkeyhawk
Posted June 2, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
“Regular” contributes –
“MonkeyHawk, the newly revised kindler gentler? blogger has tracked down nathan, taunting him and generally trying to provoke an argument.”
I asked him to invite me to church.
That’s “taunting?”
——————————
this taunting and you have written it several times today.
I’ll be there. I’ll even pray (again) that you seek the psychological help I fear you might need.
———————————
MonkeyHawk, the sincerity of a diseased yak.
Regular is getting bored. He’s bound and determined to start a flame war.
Hey, let’s not.
Really Capn? Evidently, you have not read your fellow Lib’s comments.
I pointed out that they were the ones starting it, and you state the opposite.
So much for your objectivity. Please examine your fellow Libs statements.
The only people that care what goes on at “Barak’s Church” are people that aren’t going to vote for him anyway.
This is the “Willie Horton / Scary Negro” slime machine all over again.
Obama’s too smart for that, and by reminding Americans that we’re too smart for it, he will turn the attackers into the attacked.
“Regular” –
Unlike you, I’ve read the numbers and the overwhelming evidence of untreated PTSD among Iraq War veterans.
I’m as sincere as I can be when I say I fear “Nathaniel” might be among those thousands of Iraq War veterans who are suffering from severe psychological problems directly attributable to Shrub’s unprovoked, meaningless, and (if McCain has his way) endless occupation of a nation of people who posed no threat to the United States of America.
I’ve been so open as to say, “Please look into it, if only to prove me wrong.”
Unlike you, apparently, I do not consider mental illness to carry any more of a stigma than a broken bone or hot appendix. If you were walking around with a fever and had a pain in your lower right gut, I’d suggest you see a doctor.
No stigma. No insult. Just a little advice from an observer of your symptoms.
If you had all the symptoms of a broken bone and went to a faith healer, I might posit that getting an x-ray might be in order. Maybe the faith healer will have cured your ailment, but it’s not an “attack” to offer an opinion, based on observing the pain you might be experiencing.
If you had a lifelong career of diving into pile of asbestos and started coughing, I might wonder if there could be a connection between your lifestyle and your lung disease. You’d seem to be in the high-risk group.
I simply observe some of “Nathaniel’s” posts in this forum and posit that some of his behavior might be addressed by professional psychological attention.
No insult.
No stigma.
Just the advice of a (cyber)friend.
BTW, only two days left for the Hillary Clinton political death watch.
Buh bye . . .
B.S. MonkeyHawk,
Are you a licensed and registered Psychologist or Psycologist specifically trained to identify PTSD?
Of course you are not.
You are using the statement as a detractor for staying on point.
When you can’t argue a point, you side step and use diversion.
No one is buying your B.S., including yourself MonkeyHawk.
or Psycologist should read
or Psychiatrist
“Regular” –
I’m not a gastroenterologist or surgeon, either. But if you’ve got fever and pain in the lower right side of your gut, I’d probably suggest you get your appendix checked out by someone who is.
Same diff.
When the priest video came out, I thought “Man are you all trying to sink his campaign!”.
Wright was truthful those went about it wrong and was not preaching to a president candidate but to his flock. Therefore the videos were not done with the knowledge it would be used by the opponents of Obama.
But the priest could not make that claim, its was like it was intentional to derail Obama’s campaign.
He should have left the church in the beginning, but his relationship with his church is not like McCain’s and his “pastors”. For Obama what might have started out as a political associate turn into a twenty year relationship. For McCain he was just out looking for some Saturday night fun with a couple of Religious whores.
Monkeyhawk
Posted June 2, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
“Regular” –
I’m not a gastroenterologist or surgeon, either. But if you’ve got fever and pain in the lower right side of your gut, I’d probably suggest you get your appendix checked out by someone who is.
Same diff.
———————–
Practicing medicine without a license is illegal and immoral.
A fever could indicate an infection from an intestinal torsion (twisted gut), a hernia (with secondary fever), a cancerous growth or a trauma. A number of things.
Just admit to your ploy and all will be well.
We all know B.S. when we see it MonkeyHawk and you are definetely spewing it.
Surely you aren’t that stupid to believe your own spew or are you?
Since you haven’t been around long, Monkeyhawk, Nathan has the same solid principles now as he had before he served his tour. Now you can jettison the phony concern.
Ann Coulter writes that liberalism is a mental illness… You best get help yourself. I’m sure that you will take that in the same spirit that Nathan does with your patronizing crap.
Of course, suggesting that someone should possibly see a doctor is also illegal and immoral.
Damn criminals.
Wow what happen? it shows 23 comment but when I click on the link it show no comments at all!
LOL I posted the lack of posts and when it went through all the rest showed up. Never mind then..
Hey, “Regular” –
You need a shave.
Guess that makes me barbering without a license.
Call the Hair Police!
But ya just can’t help yourself, can you?
You go into diagnostician mode with:
“A fever could indicate an infection from an intestinal torsion (twisted gut), a hernia (with secondary fever), a cancerous growth or a trauma. A number of things.”
Yup. And a friend would be perfectly within his or her rights to suggest the ailing person see a doctor.
Be sure to call the Doctor Police to arrest you when you send them after me.
But, golly! You still can’t restrain yourself, can you, “Regular?”
I guess you’re “taunting” me with:
“We all know B.S. when we see it MonkeyHawk and you are definetely spewing it.”
Uhm. You misspelled “definitely,” there “Regular.”
Oh, Lord! There I am teaching you spelling without a license!!!!
Call the Teacher Police on me, too, “Regular.”
I’m guilty as sin and you know it.
Heckler
Posted June 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
It’s not so much about Obamas church as it is about his associations and how they affect his political ideology.
Kind of reminds one of Cheney sucking up to Saddam back when he was our friend (before he was our enemy).
Or Bush kissing That Arab guy.
It’ll be interesting to see how Obama wriggles out of this.
“outlander” advises me –
“Since you haven’t been around long, Monkeyhawk, Nathan has the same solid principles now as he had before he served his tour.”
Really? (I’m assuming “Nathan” is the same poster as “Nathaniel.” I’ve not bothered to track every nym down since the format change, or sign-in requirement, or whatever.) I’ve been around WE Blog for quite a while and have never changed nyms. You can look it up.
And maybe “Nathaniel” has always been as disturbed as he appears these days in this forum. Perhaps you’re right.
Given his religiously-motivated grandiosity (self-ordained to decide just who is and who isn’t a “Christian,”) his latent paranoia (won’t go outside without a gun concealed on his person), his conspiratal plotting about what he would do if someone killed his dog (”You would disappear. And so would your car,” he wrote.), and the fact that some Iraq War veterans are subjected to George WMD Bush’s “stop-loss” policy which has sent them back to Iraq for second, third, fourth, and fifth tours while “the best man ‘HLP’ has ever known” sits in Wichita (don’t the Marines want him back?)… I simply think the guy has issues. And the Veterans Administration exists to deal with such cases.
I’m just sayin’…
“Ann Coulter writes that liberalism is a mental illness…”
Oh golly! Don’t tell “Regular” about that. He’ll have her arrested for practicing psychology without a license!
Practicing medicine without a license is illegal and immoral.
Parents do it everyday. But then you aren’t a parent, are you?
MH – I suspect Nathan and Hank ran into the same thing I did – found the ‘old’ version already in use. So, with all 3 of us we used variants that are obvious.
No surprise to see you Wingnuts frantically trying to flog–as it were–Obama’s church connections / Pastor Wright / blah blah blah blah–if I was stuck with your doddering fool of a candidate, I’d want to change the subject, too.
And then there’s this:
“Brownback and Tiahrt go to a religious group that openly admires Hitler, Stalin and Mao but the media ignores it. Obama leaves a mainstream church and that’s supposed to be a controversy. Oh well, I guess I must feel the way the corporate media tells me how to feel.
Nathaniel
Posted June 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
Maggotpunk,
What religious group would that be?
I say you are a liar.”
The group to which Maggotpunk refers, Nathan, is Doug Coe’s group, “The Fellowship,” sometimes also referred to as “The Family.” Here’s the Wikipedia link: it references all the points Maggotpunk included in the post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
“Liar” is a strong word. Ready to eat it, Nathan, since you demonstrably just shot your wad?
Monk,
Don’t be too free diagnosing PTSD in Nathan’s case. It’s my understanding that the Corps in its wisdom didn’t trust him with anything more lethal than an air wrench, so he served his hitch safely in the motor pool.
Its my understanding that Nathan was a armory master in Iraq.
Dawg,
I was going by what Nathan said a year or so ago. I suppose he could have gotten a promotion since then. Either way, he wouldn’t have spent an appreciable amount of time in the line of fire, so alleging PTSD would be a stretch. Besides, he’s been annoying ever since he joined this blog several years ago, so I doubt Iraq is to blame, and his daddy is just as bad, if not quite so strident if you need something to blame him on.
Don’t blame racism
Obama’s recent setbacks are of his own making | Joel Belz
You’re beginning to hear it now—and I predict the accusatory chant will pick up in volume between now and the gathering of the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August. It will sound like thunder by Nov. 4.
The charge will be that we are a racist nation after all, and that when finally presented with a golden opportunity to elect an attractive minority candidate, we are likely to flunk the test. So shame, shame! Just to avoid such embarrassment, get on the bandwagon and demonstrate your tolerant spirit!
The problem with such an analysis, though, is that it stands reality on its head. The America I see, both through my own observation and through the often-twisted media, is an America that would dearly love to elect its first minority president—if only the first credible minority candidate for that office would demonstrate enough integrity to deserve election.
I agree with Dick Morris, political consultant to former President Bill Clinton, who told some of us at a luncheon a few days ago what a boon it might be for America if little children from minority families everywhere could see on the walls of their homes pictures of Barack Obama as the first minority president, and respond by saying: “I could do that some day!” And I agree with Morris when he envisions little children and teenagers in other nations around the world making room, right beside the pictures they have of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., for a new American hero. What a boost for our whole beleaguered effort at good foreign relations.
To be sure, that’s only part of such a picture. Positive as that scenario might be, I also agree with Dick Morris that the price of achieving such happy consequences would be an Obama agenda that would be unacceptably costly, both in terms of dollars and policy.
But the point remains that there are millions of U.S. voters (maybe even tens of millions) who would genuinely welcome the opportunity to elect their first minority president—if only such a candidate would demonstrate, with integrity, a zeal for establishing a balanced, even administration that would represent all Americans.
It isn’t some suddenly racist streak in America that has slowed down the Obama express in recent weeks. It is instead a radicalism of his own making—a lifetime of radicalism he has almost been and may yet be successful in concealing from the American voters.
It’s the very bipartisan National Journal that says flat out that Barack Obama is the most liberal of all 100 members of the U.S. Senate. In 2005, his first year in the Senate, Obama was ranked as 16th most liberal. In 2006, he was 10th. Last year, he earned first place! (Hillary Clinton, incidentally, during the same stretch, moved from 20th to 32nd to 16th “most liberal.”)
You will peruse Obama’s record in the Senate, keeping in mind his rhetoric about “bringing people together,” and discover not a single piece of legislation that comes even close to doing that. His policy record tends more toward dividing than uniting. And the deeper we’ve come into the primary season, the more vivid have been the lines of demarcation.
Not for a minute am I saying that white racism is a thing of the past in our nation. I’ve witnessed its reality up close in recent months—including an unusual church discipline case. I know better than I like how ugly racism can be.
I am saying that racism isn’t what’s to blame for the recent bumps in Barack Obama’s road. Ironically, it may have been the voters’ zeal to demonstrate that they have left racism behind that has let them ignore what would otherwise be an unacceptable expression of extremism by a major candidate.
If you have a question or comment for Joel Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
May 17, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 10
Am,
Copy and paste of several copy feet is just an invitation to scroll over. You should learn to have and express your own opinions if you want to blog. Other people are perfectly capable of submitting their opinions themselves.
Regular
Posted June 2, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
Interesting, the only time the Libs want to fight is when they can disparage other people, stirring up trouble, making accusations, calling names and generally being disruptive.
**********
What? Sounds like Regular’s baseline tactics to me.
Plus, I would add: making up crap that he has no idea about.
StevenEDavis
Posted June 2, 2008 at 11:37 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted June 2, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
Interesting, the only time the Libs want to fight is when they can disparage other people, stirring up trouble, making accusations, calling names and generally being disruptive.
**********
What? Sounds like Regular’s baseline tactics to me.
Plus, I would add: making up crap that he has no idea about.
————————-
Not only is Steven Davis in the running for Blog Messiah, he has opted to throw his hat in for Blog Mindreader as well.
Nathan whines,
“What religious group would that be?
I say you are a liar.”
Of course you would Nathan because you are clueless. The group is the Fellowship.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
Haven’t you learned by now that every time you call me a liar you just end up looking foolish?
He stayed in that church for 20 YEARS!
And now he leaves?
And on the very day that the DNC gave him everything he wanted? Hello? Timing?
Barack Obama has to be the most politically inept politician of our time.
Maggotpunk,
Yes, you are a liar. Where does that group admire those men?
The way you present the information is a half truth at best.
You are a dishonest idiot.
“Yes, you are a liar. Where does that group admire those men?
The way you present the information is a half truth at best.
You are a dishonest idiot.”
You could try reading the article because it says it in there. Thanks for digging yourself in deeper.
Maggotpunk,
I did read the article.
You could very easily pull out the part you are talking about.
I have not dug myself anywhere.
Oh Nathan, I could pull it out or I could have you prove that you either are a liar (that you never read the article you claimed to) or that you have poor reading comprehension. What shall it be?
Thank goodness I didn’t bother mentioning that he has a book on the entire subject and the article is just a small summary but I suppose you’ll want me to quote every part of the book as well.
But let’s see if you can figure out the relevant part I was referring to, about the Fellowship admiring the leadership styles of dictators. It’s right where Doug Coe was talking to Tiahrt. Let’s see if you can read the article this time and find it.
Maggotpunk,
I know the part you are talking about. I have read it. Nothing in it says that they admire those men.
You are an ignorant lying fool.
Perhaps that is why the media would ignore such stupidity?
Then I’ll just have to chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension. If you actually understood (or actually read the article) then you would have read the bottom of the article where Coe again references the covenant and Hitler.
Coe agrees with me, the author of the story agrees with me:
http://www.alternet.org/story/16167/?page=3
but you claim that I’m a lying idiot because, unlike you, I know to comprehend what I read. Oh well, you just can’t cure stupid some days.
How deep is that hole now?
Maggotpunk,
It is rather simple. You are using the opinion of others who have just as much of an agenda as you do to make these people look bad to prove your assertion.
It is a form of circular logic where you are not ever proving your point, only giving me an example of someone else who believes your stupidity.
You claimed that Tiahrt was going to a group that “openly admires Hitler, Stalin and Mao.”
Nothing you have posted so far supports that.
The only thing I have seen was that they used some of their practices of a covenant for strength.
How is that admiring the men openly?
Especially when everything you have posted so far is about a very “secretive” group. So how are they “openly” admiring those men?
The hole getting deeper is yours.
Apart from the article talking about how Tiahrt was trying to join the group, then yes, you do have a point. Fact is you can’t read anything presented right in front of you.
So far I’ve presented an article and an interview which supports everything I’ve claimed. On the contrary you’ve presented denials based solely on wishful thinking.
Is your argument that Tiahrt was never mentioned in the article and the author was completely lying when he said he was there when Coe was talking with Tiahrt? Or do you believe the Fellowship is an imaginary group? Nah, I’m betting you just haven’t read a damn thing I’ve presented because facts destroy your fragile worldview. It must suck to know that the people you vote for and admire are a bunch of Nazi lovers who joined a group started by a Christian who loved fascism. Or are you still in denial about your Christian leader Hagee being a lover of Hitler as one of God’s prophets?
Rolling Stone had an entire article on your Nazi loving hero Brownback:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator
And here’s a little excerpt from the book:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/excerpts/2008/05/jeff-sharlet-the-family.html
To bad your mental VCR is constantly blinking “ignorant” because no matter how many facts are presented before you you’ll still deny them. That hole is probably down to China by now.
Maggotpunk,
Once again, they did not admire the men, they were using their examples of small unit leadership, coveneants, etc…
The one link you also posted mentioned that they looked at the Marine Corps 4 man teams.
*GASP*
Not that!
You are a fool. That is why the media would never do what you sit there ignorantly wondering why about.
Nothing you have posted shows that they admired the men you said they do.
If you think otherwise, simply post the part of any of those links that does. I don’t see it.
Nathan, no one other than wacked out leftists would even consider tripe like Maggie is hustling. And they are far gone already.
Once again Nathan can’t resist the urge to look foolish. From US News & World Report:
“But behind the scenes, Sharlet contends, Vereide and his key men worked with politicians and officials to advance unfettered, tooth-and-claw capitalism and engage in secret diplomacy with some of the world’s least savory leaders, including, in the past, Indonesia’s General Suharto and Haiti’s François “Papa Doc” Duvalier. If all that weren’t ominous enough, the group’s leader since 1969, Doug Coe, has gained something of a reputation for invoking not only Jesus but also Hitler, Lenin, and Mao as models of effective leadership.”
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/05/28/exposing-a-network-of-powerful-christians.html
Funny how educated people that have reading comprehension skills can figure it out. Oh well, nobody has ever accused Nathan of being educated.
Maggotpunk,
Your original post was that they “admired” those men, not that they looked at their leadership styles.
Please show me where they “openly admired” those men as you claimed.
You can’t.
You are an ignorant fool.
Be sure to read Maggotpunk’s link. It is a pretty even-handed review of the book. Here is a quote from it that I know Maggie would want you to read, because, well, he’s just that kind of guy. This one includes praise about the efforts of our own Senator Brownback:
“There is another problem. Some politicians supposedly under the sway of the Fellowship have often worked for goals abroad that even liberals would praise. Brownback’s legislative efforts to combat the slave trade and other abuses of human rights around the world have distinguished his political career. And as Wooldridge notes in his World Affairs article, Coe himself has often used his network of international friends to help resolve conflicts between and within nations in Africa, notably within Sudan.”
You see outlander, that’s why you aren’t that bad, it’s because you can read unlike your Nathan friend there.
It’s not surprising that Coe’s group would want an end to civil war since a war like the one in Sudan isn’t good for establishing businesses. The Family prefers iron fisted dictatorships because those are the most profitable for capitalism. Resources and people can be exploited and the dictator can keep the people in check if they ever start demanding things like human rights.
Obama leaving his church because it’s hurting his political campaign shows his true lack of Integrity and BALLS.
What will Obama wimp out of next? The NAACP?
I can see him trying to shed his skin next. (Though HE has made his skin color THE issue of his campaign to get to this point.)
No, I believe it was Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton that first made the color of Obama’s skin an issue.
What frightens the Republicans so much about Obama? I’m sure there have been countless hours spent trying to dig up some dirt on Obama and the only things that have come to light are guilt by association? One relationship even had Obama when he was only 8 yrs old! Another was his father being a Muslim – as if that made him automatically a Muslim.
Obama’s personal life must be squeaky clean, certainly cleaner than most of the Republican politicians with their multiple wives/divorces. Or those like Larry Craig who have other issues to deal with.
Maybe the American people like Obama because he is a fresh face. Obama certainly came out of nowhere and gave the Clintons a run for their money, didn’t he? I suspect he will do the same to John McCain.
One Trackback
Jessie…
Have enjoyed your site very much and benefited from the information. Thank You….