In LA Times column, Jonah Goldberg falsely asserted Obama's "campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall"
SUMMARY: Jonah Goldberg falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's "campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall." In fact, the office in question is not "Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston," nor is it an official campaign office controlled by the Obama campaign.
In his February 26 Los Angeles Times column, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's "campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall." Goldberg wrote: "Why is it only conservative 'cranks' who think it's relevant that Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall?" In fact, the office in question -- originally featured in a February 6 news report by KRIV, a Fox television affiliate in Houston -- is not "Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston," nor is it an official campaign office controlled by the Obama campaign. A February 12 report on the controversy over the flag by KRIV featured Obama campaign spokesman Josh Earnest saying, "It is important for your viewers to understand that the office that was featured in the previous story was opened independently and separate from our official campaign."
Further, on February 12, the Obama campaign posted a statement on its website:
"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama Campaign
As PolitiFact.com reported, the local Fox affiliate's webpage containing video of the original report now features the following disclaimer: "The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign." From PolitiFact.com:
"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign," a statement from the campaign reads. "We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people."
A disclaimer now appears below the Web site with the Fox 26 video of the women opening the office. "The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."
Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said he has heard that the flag was taken down. "But honestly, it's not our office," he said on Feb. 21, 2008. "It is not an official campaign office. She (Maria Isabel, the woman who reportedly had the flag hanging behind her desk) is a volunteer precinct captain. Her views do not reflect the views of the campaign."
From Goldberg's February 26 Los Angeles Times column:
I don't think such associations should cost people their careers or place in polite society. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?
Why is it only conservative "cranks" who think it's relevant that Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall? Indeed, why is love of Che still radically chic at all? A murderer who believed that "the U.S. is the great enemy of mankind" shouldn't be anyone's romantic hero. Why are Fidel Castro's apologists progressive and enlightened but apologists for Augusto Pinochet frightening and authoritarian? Why was Sen. Trent Lott's kindness to former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond a scandal but Obama's acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist a triviality?
I have my own answers to these questions. But I'm interested in theirs. In the Democratic debate this week, maybe moderators can resist the temptation to repeat healthcare questions for the billionth time and instead ask America's foremost liberal representatives why being a radical means never having to say you're sorry.
Well, you have to remember that the audience for which these pop guns are intended is not all that bright. They're like the dog who repeatedly runs after an imaginary object that you pretend to throw... they never learn.
The knuckledragging GOP base will slavishly nod their heads and wring their hands over little tidbits like this... professional liars like Goldberg will have them convinced that Obama is a terrorist by the time November rolls around.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The LA Times fired Robert Scheer; a brillant national security/political analyst with the credentials both intellectually, and in government with an independance to spell out the reality of our policies with reliable, and consistantly accurate analysis for many years to the voter/reader, for Jonah Goldberg whom attended a recently integrated all Womens college that found him stil without a date. Whom can't resight history well enough to distort it.
It's like trading JFK for GWB.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Sort of like affirmative action for lying no-talent Troglodytes.
Hey let's cut Jonah some slack ....
Anyone who grows up as Lucianne Goldberg's kid has issues... :)
Yes indeed.
Let's not focus on matters of interest to mainstream voters lets focus on matters of interest, whether they're true or not, to the right wing Republicans.
The author is wrong.
However, i've noticed people accusing those on the left of running away from the terms 'liberal' and 'patriotism' on this website. I take pride in acknowledging that I'm inspired by Che Guevara, and it is no smear to me to be called a liberal - in fact its probably too moderate, i prefer socialist. That isn't to say i support everything Ernesto Guevara ever did, but he's still a brave, inspirational revolutionary. Reublicants pride themselves in worshipping Reagan. Well Reagan stomped all over democracy in Latin America. Reagan instituted economic policies that massively increased economic disparity. He is directly responsible as head of government, for many deaths in El Salvador, for example, by backing the right-wing government there as it suppressed opposition to foney elections. But it isn't a shock to anyone when people site Reagan as a hero.
I'm liberal, and I find inspiration in Che Guevara, and I Hugo Chavez, and I'm happy to admit it. Of course, I'm not running for political office, so i can speak freely.
Tomjoad wrat:
>> I take pride in acknowledging that I'm inspired by Che Guevara
I share a lot of our sentiments. I spent a year in Germany, and the standard of living is simply higher--so is the participation in the democracy.
But I am not of Che. There was a book written by a journalists/writer who did a motorcycle tour of South America, and sorry to be vague here, but he pointed out that Che was rather a radical and held some views I don't think we could agree with. Sorry to be so vague.
the torture..the murder...the abolition of elections...the gulags..
..wow...some inspiration.
Guevara didn't give a sh!t about "the people". He was a psychopathic, narcissistic murderous, sadistic thug who used the mantel of "revolution" as an excuse for his acting out of his sick twisted impulses.
Cuba is an extremely hierarchical society with degree of whiteness being the determinant of place in that society.
Some of Che's more self-defining quotes:
The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving."
“South American peasants are simply little animals.”
“Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate Indians.”
...but...but...there's a picture of him on all those t-shirts
Cuba is an extremely hierarchical society with degree of whiteness being the determinant of place in that society.
- The Stranger
-------------------------------------
You mean its just like the United States?
You mean its just like the United States?
Yes...sadly.
However, the Castro and Che apologists hang their hats on the "social justice" hook. That is the justification for all the human rights abuses over the years..and which continue to happen.
The good news is that the US has undergone a sea change over the past decades. The injustices in the past are inexcusable.
We now have codified legislation that prevents us from backsliding. This has created a more even playing field for everyone. We all have the same opportunities.
The same is not true in Cuba. Free access to a sub-standard health care system does not make up for that.
Stranger: Don’t try to pull your concern for human rights as an excuse for The Rights’ hatred of anything “Cuba”. I don’t buy it for a second. If the Republicans on the right were so concerned with human rights we wouldn’t have had thousands of people abandoned after Katrina, the antics in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, or million of non-violent offenders in our federal prisons.
The only thing that concerns the right about Cuba, and any country who have snubbed their noses at U.S., is the fact that there isn’t a McDonalds on every corner and corporate America has not been able to fill their pockets by taking advantage of their peoples. Any nation that wants to isolate itself from the influences of the U.S. is well within their rights to do so – but of course the right will paint anyone who is not willing to play our games as part of an evil empire. Unless a country is a direct threat to our security they should be left alone to sort things out for themselves instead of demonized. It’s no different than any other right wing issue – if something doesn’t fit their ideology – then the only patriotic thing to do is HATE them.
Stranger: Don’t try to pull your concern for human rights as an excuse for The Rights’ hatred of anything “Cuba”. I don’t buy it for a second. If the Republicans on the right were so concerned with human rights we wouldn’t have had thousands of people abandoned after Katrina, the antics in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, or million of non-violent offenders in our federal prisons.
Meh...just more childishness.
Who cares if you don't "buy" my concern. You have nothing base your opinion on.
Thousands were not abandoned in NO. It was the fault of the mayor and the governor for not following establishing and/or following proper evacuation procedues..remember the infamous picture of the hundreds of buses sitting in the parking lot?
What antics in GITMO are you talking about? They are enemies captured in the field of battle...and are being treated extremely well.
Abu Ghraib was an aberration and was dealt with very severly. Why bring it up in this context?
...and what the hell does US prison stats have to do with anything?
It was the fault of the mayor and the governor for not following establishing and/or following proper evacuation procedues.
I can't believe you need to have this explained to you again - the federal government had the POWER and the MEANS to act in this crisis, no matter who didn't follow procedure or who didn't evacuate. Instead this became a money grab by the corporations while Bush played guitar followed by a meaningless fly-over.
What antics in GITMO are you talking about? They are enemies captured in the field of battle...and are being treated extremely well.
How many GITMO detainees have been prosecuted? These were people who were kidnapped because the CIA was bribing Afghans. And treated well? Are you really Duncan Hunter?
Abu Ghraib was an aberration and was dealt with very severly. Why bring it up in this context?
It was not an aberration - do you really think that a "few bad apples", low level troops, just one day said "Let's strip these guys and put them in a pyramid."
...and what the hell does US prison stats have to do with anything?
It shows the lock 'em up and throw away the key mentality of people like you.
The back story of Abu Ghraib that got lost is that most of the prisoners there had done nothing wrong. If we tracked down a kid who was planting road side bombs we were hauling in all the males in his entire neighborhood. The brilliant plan was to sexually humiliate the innocent ones and then threaten to show their friends and families compromising pictures of them unless they agreed to be informants. I'd be more than a little pissed off at Americans if they had done that to me.
All I can do is point out the obvious – your denial is your problem, not mine.
...and what the hell does US prison stats have to do with anything?
The fact that we have the largest per capita prison population in any “democratic” nation is not an indication of human rights abuses? So you’re saying that, as a whole, Americans are just inherently or genetically more evil than people anywhere else in the world – and more deserving of imprisonment?
He was a psychopathic, narcissistic murderous, sadistic thug who used the mantel of "revolution" as an excuse for his acting out of his sick twisted impulses.
I am in no way defending Guevara – but your descriptive adjectives of him ARE filled with irony - How mature of YOU to call my pointing this out as ”childishness”.
Let’s look at each adjective and place a mirror up to GW…
Psychopathic – He passed the 18 question test here
Narcissistic - I’m not a psychological expert, but consider the leading indicators of a narcissistic personality disorder as derived from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
* An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
* Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love * Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
* Requires excessive admiration
* Has a sense of entitlement
* Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
* Lacks empathy
* Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
* Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Murderous – who knows how many dead civilians in his unjust war - and GW averaged one execution per WEEK as Texas governor.
Sadistic – Torture is OK
Thug- He used fear, intimidation, distortion and lies as an excuse to invade a nation at the risk of igniting a global conflict. In Congress, he continually uses his presidential authority to bully legislation.
Maybe you use a different dictionary than most people do? - since everything else you spout seems to come from your own little world.
I've heard it before strange. You're entitled to your opinion. You probably disagree with my opinion of Ronald Reagan. That's fine. What I'm saying is, I personally don't see the issue with being inspired by Guevara, but that isn't to say I support everything he ever said, or did.
Of course, if I actually believed the idea that Che Guevara didn't care about 'the people' or that his intentions weren't the best, or that he wasn't a hero, then i wouldn't be inspired by him.
Che Guevara was a murderous thug. I read a story he told about how the Revolutionaries 'liberated' an old man's donkey to haul a cannon up a hill overlooking a city (Havana?). The old man made his living by going into the hills with his donkey and cutting wood and taking it down and selling it.
When the cannon task was done, the old man went to Guevara and asked for his donkey back. They didn't need it anymore. Guevara bragged that they had the old fellow executed for his bourgeois sentiments.
If you find that kind of person 'inspiring,' that is really sad.
While you are right on the unverified part, I think you seemed to have missed something. He didn't say he killed the donkey, he killed the man. Minor difference, I know.
Then again, you already have your opinion of the man, how is one more murder going to change that.
You might consider that you are more inspired by the ideals attributed to the man (through his movements propaganda and the historical glorification of those that share the theoretical views he espoused) than the ideals the man actually lived by.
The story I related was in a book by Guevara. He told the story. He ordered the old man shot. He was a thug. (Sorry, it's been too long for me to dredge up the title. I think it was an autobiography of sorts.) It is one thing to kill in self-defense or in battle. It is quite another to order an unarmed, helpless old man shot because he wanted his donkey back. No 'cause' is sufficient to justify such thuggery.
Such are the 'heroes' of the left. Such are the 'heroes' of some of those who work for the election of Barack Obama.
As Secretary of State at the War Office (1919), W Churchill authorised the RAF Middle East Command to use chemical weapons “against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment”, dismissing objections by the India Office as “unreasonable”. “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas… I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes (to) spread a lively terror…” (The tribes were the Kurds of Iraq and the Afghans.)
“We cannot acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any available weapons to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier”, adding that chemical weapons are merely “the application of Western science to modern warfare”.
or
[Gary Younge, Guardian, 30 Sept 2002]
Churchill branded Gandhi “a half-naked fakir” who “ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back.”
or
The Indians of East Africa are mainly of a low class of coolies and the idea of equality with Europeans is revolting to every white man in British East Africa…- The Indians are the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans…
- Black people: ‘ni^^ers’, ‘baboons’; Italians: ‘mere organ grinders’
- Chinese army in the Korean War: ‘4 million pigtails don’t make an army’.
Then say such are the heroes of the racist bloodthirsty RIGHT. It wouldnt really MAKE a point but it would seem to.
He was a psychopathic, narcissistic murderous, sadistic thug who used the mantel of "revolution" as an excuse for his acting out of his sick twisted impulses.
This is so funny. Just change the word “revolution” to “democracy” and you have a perfect description of GW Bush. But of course, as usual, The Stanger is a stranger to his own ironies.
This is so funny. Just change the word “revolution” to “democracy” and you have a perfect description of GW Bush. But of course, as usual, The Stanger is a stranger to his own ironies.
Well...not really, but thanks for the child-like analysis anyway.
Bush removed a twisted sick tyrant who is responsible for the deaths of over a million. Don't forget the rape rooms, the childrens prisons, the torture chambers, the machines used to shred people while still alive, the vats of acid people were dipped into..again while still alive..etc. ad nauseum.
...and don't even try to comeback with..."Well x amount of civilians were killed by coalition forces".
yes, extremely unfortunately, there were civilans killed...but, not in the numbers that the lying leftist claimed...AND...most importantly...it was insurgents doing the majority of the killings..
...notice now that since the "insurgents" have been pretty much neutralized...the death rates are dropping all around..
...so...calling something a "revolution" negates atrocities, huh?..
...so that's why the left doesn't seem to mind that their ideology is responsible for more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century
Stranger,
You are really going to say that Hitler and Stalin were leftists? Totalitarians are not right or left no matter what they call their parties.
Let me ask you this, which party in this country has tried to consolidate more and more power in the executive branch during the last decade?
Stalin was a communist. Mao was a communist. Hitler was a national socialist. In the U.S., communism, and socialism are viewed as left of center, thus it is accurate to call Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and Guevara 'leftists.'
Coincidentally, they were all murderous thugs as well. But they were inspiring thugs! U.S. socialists are (for the most part) national rather than international socialists. They're not a very inspiring lot, though. Our socialists are mainly Democrats. Their greatest achievement since the Yalta agreement has been to guarantee a woman the right to abort her child. Such a proud heritage. And even that they accomplished by judicial fiat instead of through the electoral process.
Ed,
Surely, you jest. Are you really Jonah Goldberg? What party has been consolidating as much power in the executive office as it can in the last eight years? Which party has a vice president who is trying to make an argument that he is a member of the Senate so he doesn't have to show all of his documents? Which party is promoting the use of warrantless wiretaps without accountability? Which party is against Habeus Corpus? Which party requires "loyalty oaths?" Which party has arrested protesters because they didn't like the shirts they were wearing?
Just because Hitler, Stalin et al called themselves "Communists" or "Socialists" doesn't mean that they were. They were authoritarian dictators who wanted no accountability. Can we agree on that?
Do you need the list of important legislation passed when the Dems held both Houses of Congress? I guess the Civil Rights Act means nothing to you. BEFORE YOU REPLY that it was because of the Republicans that the Act got passed, answer two questions: 1) What party did the "Southern Democrats" join? 2) If you break down the voting by North and South and THEN look at voting percentages, which party voted in favor of the Act in greater percentages?
By the way, since its 1972, make the bet I have offered you.
TOMJOAD:
I understand supporting revolutionary ideals ... America was founded by revolution.
I understand seeing the plight of those in need, and wishing to take action on their behalf ... the Statue of Liberty states in part "... bring me your poor."
I even understand honoring the courage of folks like Che and Fidel, throwing out "oppressors" and hoping to "free the people".
What I DO NOT understand is adopting the whole package of "socialism" as we have seen carried out by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. We can SEE and EXAMINE the kind of life the citizens in those countries have. They are NOT free, they have NO liberty, they have not been empowered. Castro and Chavez, no matter how much they preached "power to the people", are DICTATORS, and their people are subjugated.
So maybe you need to be more clear about your "socialism". Do you wish for America to become LIKE Cuba or Venezuela? For our citizens to be under the same kind of "leadership" as those countries? Does your admiration for "revolution" extend to installing despots for life, with the POWER of life or death over all subjects?
The IDEA of "communism" is simple ... in fact, most FAMILIES operate under those "rules". In a good family, those who can work DO, and share the wealth among the family members for the good of all. Every member is loved, respected, and treated as an individual. Education is paramount, and all others sacrifice to provide education for the developing members of the family. It's a simple idea. Food and shelter are "communal".
BUT ... it does not work with NATIONS. The other RULES of communism ... no private property, no scale of gain by labor ... are LOSERS, because they go against human nature. Human beings are driven to COMPETE, to make their lives better with the fruits of their labor, to ACQUIRE things as a mark of growing success. Communism goes against these drives, and so communism will FAIL wherever it is tried.
As we have seen in history, nations CLAIMING to be "communist" or "socialist" ... the USSR and Cuba to name a couple ... instead have more in common governmentally with the old FEUDAL SYSTEMS, with many serfs with no hope and no say, and a few ELITES who rule with absolute power.
Dictators, despots, monarchs ... that is what has resulted from "socialist revolution" ... because "communism" is not workable. SOMEONE steps in to be "in charge", and it is always with absolute corruption.
American Democracy is the greatest experiment in POWER TO THE PEOPLE ever devised. Our system CAN be corrupted by power, but it can also be CORRECTED by THE PEOPLE. We are coming up on a HUGE correction in 2008, throwing out the NeoCons and opting for more "populist" rule (I hope and pray).
So, as you laud being a "SOCIALIST", it might do to be more clear what you MEAN. Does it mean you'd prefer to be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela? If so, SAY so. And then perhaps MOVE there. If NOT, make your distinctions clear.
Tex
Aunque no estoy de acuerdo con la mayoridad de sus opiniones, tengo que decir <<bueno dicho...muy buen dicho>>
Warum scriebst du auf Spanish? Ich kann auch Spanish, aber es gibt kein Sinn, auf ein Fremd Sprache zu reden wenn wir alle English koennen.
Hast du jetz gelernt, Prozent zu calculieren? Kannst du jetz lesen?
Tex, you refute your post with your post. If humans can live in a communal society on a family level they can live that way on any level. If you're able to engage in a behavior once, you can do it again.
What the power structure labels itself has nothing to do with the actual operations. For example, China is a republic, and it is also a totalitarian state that engages in capitalism. Socialism is when the workers own what they produce. That sure seems alot like a 401K plan where you're matched at a double or triple rate when you buy the company's stock. If the American power structure cared about democracy, they wouldn't have supported Sadam, Suhharto, or Pinochet to name but a few. When Turkey would not allow American planes to use their airspace to bomb Iraq, the great democracy promoter Wolfowitz stated that the Turkish military should step in and correct that problem.
Without interviewing GWB, it is not possible to diagnose him with either Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial PD (psychopathy), but based on his public statements and acts, he certainly has more than a few of the traits for each of these pervasive behavioral disorders. These problems do not go away on there own, and they cause massive amounts of grief for the individuals who must deal with the disordered person (e.g. our country).
The propaganda arm of the right wing (which I'm beginning to think is the only working part of their system) will continue to muddy the water with halftruths and complete lies. They do this b/c the know the media will not call them out on this and even if one or two outlets do, the goal is achieved. The goal is to make people want to dissociate from the political process, b/c our system actually can be changed rather easily with involvment. Again and again I hear educated people state rightwing lies as though they are truth even after these lies are debunked. John and Jane Public say, "well, one side says this and the other side says that. I don't know who to believe. They've gotta both be lieing." Mission accomplished. That is why sites like this and others are necessary for an educated electorate which is necessary for a working democratic republic.
Tex wrat:
>>American Democracy is the greatest experiment in POWER TO THE PEOPLE ever devised. Our system CAN be corrupted by power, but it can also be CORRECTED by THE PEOPLE. We are coming up on a HUGE correction in 2008, throwing out the NeoCons and opting for more "populist" rule (I hope and pray).
>>So, as you laud being a "SOCIALIST", it might do to be more clear what you MEAN. Does it mean you'd prefer to be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela? If so, SAY so. And then perhaps MOVE there. If NOT, make your distinctions clear.
Wow, who knew you had right wing reactionary tendencies? You might want to learn the difference between communism and socialism before you go off on a rant. All of Europe is socialist. I lived in German for a year, and it puts American democracy to shame. They have up to 90% turnout for elections.
And telling people to love their country or leave it is simply beneath contempt, especially for one who calls himself a liberal.
One last thing. I haven't followed the situation in Venuazela too closely lately, but Chavez is an *elected* leader, and one who is wildly popular with the majority of Venezualans. I understand he has curtailed some human rights, but I certainly would not place Venezuala in the same category as Cuba, which is run by a dictator who was not elected.
i agree. But tex you may be right, maybe the ideals rather than the method are what I feel aligned with. Capitalism as it is sold to us on a basis of 'everyone for themselves' and to me, my experiences have shown it fosters attitudes as cold as steel. Free-market capitalism and the veil of democracy the oligarchy throw over it is simply greed. Socialism, especially that found in the rhetoric of someone like Chavez, is not about greed. And attacks on Hugo Chavez in this thread are poorly informed and dsiplay an unsuprising ignorance regarding Venezuela before and after 1998. We turn a blind eye to corporate corruption and astounding poverty when the puppet government there serves our interests, but when democracy chooses a leader who doesn't serve our interests, suddenly he's a tyrant.
Steinbeck's Tomjoad wrat:
>>But tex you may be right, maybe the ideals rather than the method are what I feel aligned with. Capitalism as it is sold to us on a basis of 'everyone for themselves' and to me,
You should look more into European socialism, that works very, very well. Virtually every worker in Germany belongs to a union. As a result, Germans are guarenteed by law 5 weeks of vacation a year, and they think the work conditions in America are insane. It is not a matter of an ideal for Germans. They simply would not put up with the bs that American workers put up with.
Tomjoad scrieb:
>>The strongest economy in the world, and teh workers can't get health care, and get less than half the annual leave of most other western democracies. Quality of life isn't related necessarily to massive gdp. /endrant.
No, it's not a rant. The worst thing is, that the newspapers never carry a good story on Europe (other than it is a good place to visit). It is always described as a failed economy that hasn't caught up to America yet! I kid you not. And how is exactly is the Euro doing in relation to the dollar these days?
FunnyManPants says: "Wow, who knew you had right wing reactionary tendencies?"
RESPONSE: Nobody will know, unless you make the case with evidence, and PROOVE it. I'll continue in your post to see if you do so ...
FMP: "You might want to learn the difference between communism and socialism before you go off on a rant."
RESPONSE: Sigh. COMMUNISM is an economic construct, while SOCIALISM is more a cultural thing ... roughly speaking. For governmental purposes, they are virtually the same in their GOALS (i.e. elimination of private property), and so for my "rant", I use the terms could be interchangably, and if you want to fault that, you'll need specifics that are relevant, rather than being distinctions without a practical difference.
FMP: "All of Europe is socialist. I lived in German for a year, and it puts American democracy to shame. They have up to 90% turnout for elections."
RESPONSE: America is "socialist" in many of its policies ... social security and medicare to name but two ... so it's a matter of degree. I agree that more people should VOTE, but fail to see what relevance that has to my points.
FMP: "And telling people to love their country or leave it is simply beneath contempt, especially for one who calls himself a liberal."
RESPONSE: I merely suggested that if the poster preferred the "socialism/communism" practiced by Chavez or Castro, he might be happier living and basking in their superior attributes. Lots of political things are "beneath contempt" ... but this one doesn't qualify. Oh, and I don't CALL myself a "Liberal" ... I AM a Liberal.
FMP: "One last thing. I haven't followed the situation in Venuazela too closely lately, but Chavez is an *elected* leader, and one who is wildly popular with the majority of Venezualans."
RESPONSE: Dictators hold elections (Saddam routinely got 99% of the vote in Iraq, remember?), and also control the polls. It isn't safe under a dictator to speak against his or her regime ... people are "disappeared" for such behavior. So I'm not surprised a dictator seems to be "wildly popular" and "democratically elected", but I AM surprised you would believe the press releases (PRAVDA routinely told the world how wildly popular the government of the USSR was with its people).
FMP: "I understand he has curtailed some human rights,"
RESPONSE: Good you understand SOMETHING. Ah, a few human rights, here and there. What's the big deal?
FMP: "... but I certainly would not place Venezuala in the same category as Cuba, which is run by a dictator who was not elected."
RESPONSE: So, maybe the poster I addressed would PREFER Venezuela to Cuba, based on your recommendation? As long as he wasn't too fond of his "human rights", that is ...
Tomjoad wrat:
>>i didnt say i preferred anything. its a long shot from saying 'i align myself with socialism' and saying' i would prefer to live in venezuela than the united states'
Yes, but Tex apparently doesn't even understand the difference between socialism and communism, so can you actually expect him to engage in any type of deep, subtle thinking? No, better to bash those who don't share his views in an Archie Bunker rant, and then try to claim he didn't do so.
See my link below. Chavez has been elected in open, fair elections. Chavez did a hell of a lot for the people of Venezuala. Looking at wikipedia, I see that Chavez has been criticized for undermining the freedom of the press by human rights groups, which of course is really bad. (In fairness, a coup was staged against him in 2002). In 2004, Amnesty International claimed 14 deaths by his forces, but this case seems to be poorly documented.
Tex wrat:
>>RESPONSE: Dictators hold elections (Saddam routinely got 99% of the vote in Iraq, remember?), and also control the polls. It isn't safe under a dictator to speak against his or her regime ... people are "disappeared" for such behavior. So I'm not surprised a dictator seems to be "wildly popular" and "democratically elected", but I AM surprised you would believe the press releases (PRAVDA routinely told the world how wildly popular the government of the USSR was with its people).
God you are an idiot! Who knew that the left had an idiot who was as stupid as stranger? I guess I had never paid attention to your rants before. But here is a link showing that Chavez was elected in a *fair, free* election.
link
>>RESPONSE: Sigh. COMMUNISM is an economic construct, while SOCIALISM is more a cultural thing ... roughly speaking. For governmental purposes, they are virtually the same in their GOALS (i.e. elimination of private property), and so for my "rant", I use the terms could be interchangably, and if you want to fault that, you'll need specifics that are relevant, rather than being distinctions without a practical difference.
Oh yes, Tex. Who knew that the Geraman governement was just a "cultural" thing?
link
You can use communism interchangeably, but that doesn't make them right, just like I can use black and white interchangeable.
>>RESPONSE: I merely suggested that if the poster preferred the "socialism/communism" practiced by Chavez or Castro, he might be happier living and basking in their superior attributes.
No. You basically said love it or leave it. You know, there is this thing called the Declaration of Independence that tells us that we should try to change our country when we don't like it. If the poster thinks that socialism is a better system, maybe he would want to work for it in America, rather than leaving it, as you suggest.
FUNNYMANPANTS “wrote”: … some namecalling … an insult … then a link that PROVES a human-rights violating propagandizing DICTATOR was “elected” fair and square.
And the issue at hand, whether COMMUNISM is different from SOCIALISM, and whether Chavez is either one or both … well, FMP doesn’t get into it.
Instead, FUNNYMANPANTS “wrote”: “The “Geraman governement" (sic) was just a "cultural" thing?”
RESPONSE: Educate us, FMP. Is the “Geraman governement” communist? Socialist? Both? How? What policies? Are they MORE “Socialist” than the USA? Is the USA Socialist enough to be called Socialist? Does Communism define such policy as JUDICIAL standards? Does Socialism? Are there DEGREES of Socialism, but not of Communism? Or the other way around?
You come on like an EXPERT, FMP, and have lots of insults for people who don't define terms to your liking, but you spend lots of time trying to INSULT, and none at all trying to ENLIGHTEN.
FMP says, “No. You basically said love it or leave it.”
RESPONSE: “Basically” is a weasel word that means, I didn’t say what you want to say I said. You wish to “interpret” a straw man you can attack. BASICALLY, that means you have no point to make.
As to staying and trying to change this country, using CUBA, “GERAMAN”, or VENEZUELA as a “model”, that’s just great. Good luck to you, the other poster, or anyone else.
Me, if I had a nation that I just loved how it worked and what its leader was doing enough that I wanted to change another nation to be just like it … I believe I would just move THERE. But that’s me. If I loved fried chicken, but worked at McDonald’s, I think I’d just get a job at KFC rather than try to change McDonalds “from within” to suit me better. But that’s me.
tex wrat:
>>FUNNYMANPANTS “wrote”: … some namecalling … an insult … then a link that PROVES a human-rights violating propagandizing DICTATOR was “elected” fair and square.
And what the heck is this supposed to mean? The link shows the *opposite* of the way you categorize it. But instead of acknowledging that, you simply reassert your initial thesis, that Chavez is a dictator. Well, if he is elected, then he is not a dictator, right? You don't need to put the word "elected" in quotations.
As for the insults, Tex, you already accused me of loving a dictator and getting my news from Pravda. And your initial post was really right-wing and reactionary, telling Tomjoad to move if he admired socialism, and characterizing the US as such a great nation that no one should even think of admiring another system.
And no, I didn't interpret a strawman. One does not interpret a strawman--one sets up a strawman. Here is exactly what you said: "So, as you laud being a "SOCIALIST", it might do to be more clear what you MEAN. Does it mean you'd prefer to be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela? If so, SAY so. And then perhaps MOVE there." You are saying that I mis-characterized your statement love it or leave it?
Then of course you completely mis-characterize my post by saying that I want to use Venezuela, or Cuba, or German as a model, when I explicitly stated that Cuba was a dictatorship, and said that Venezuela had human rights problems. Your last line about moving to another country again is simply stupid. You can admire things about another country and and want the US to adopt those characteristics without wanting to move there.
As far as educating you about Germany, no thanks. You show you intellectual curiosity. If you can't even distinguish communism from socialism, I'm not going to waste my time. You still think that Chavez is a dictator, even after my link disproved that. What does that show about your capacity to really want to understand things and have a discussion?
Here's a challenge for you, Tex. If you want me to take you seriously, show how Chavez is a dictator when he was elected if fair elections, monitored by The European Union, Jimmy Carter, and The Organization for American States. If you want to assert otherwise, then I have to conclude that you are just spouting BS here.
TROOPS CLASH WITH VENEZUELAN PROTESTERS
Nov 2, 2007 08:22 AM US/Eastern
By Christopher Toothaker
Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Soldiers used tear gas, plastic bullets and water cannons to scatter tens of thousands who massed Thursday to protest constitutional reforms that would permit Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely.
Led by university students, protesters chanted "Freedom! Freedom!" and warned that 69 amendments drafted by the Chavista-dominated National Assembly would violate civil liberties and derail democracy.
It was the biggest turnout against Chavez in months, and appeared to revive Venezuela's languid opposition at a time when the president seems as strong as ever. Students promised more street demonstrations over the weekend, but no opposition-led protests were planned for Friday.
"This is a dictatorship masked as democracy," said Jorge Rivas, an 18-year-old student. "Chavez wants our country to be like Cuba, and we're not going to allow that to occur."
The amendments would give the government control over the Central Bank, create new types of cooperative property, allow authorities to detain citizens without charge during a state of emergency and extend presidential terms from six to seven years while allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.
I'm not running for political office, so i can speak freely.
...and you're not living in Cuba or Venezuela...so you can literally speak freely..
..possibly losing an election and being thrown in jail and tortured are quite a bit different...dontcha think?..
...inspiring, ain't it?
Stranger,
I am guessing that we can agree that those arrested at the Bush rally for wearing "Impeach Bush" t-shirts got a raw deal, right? And the guy in Colorado who was arrested for "assaulting" Cheney by telling him that his policies were dispicable also got shafted, right?
I'm glad the Obama campaign disavowed the Che flag.
But Obama is definitely vulnerable on the charge of being a left wing radical, even a Marxist.
The last Democrat to run as a liberal (much less a left-wing radical) was George McGovern. If I remember correctly, he carried Massachusetts.
Good luck in November.
Actually Dukakis ran as a liberal. He lost, of course, but he lacked charisma and Bush 41 was the vice-president of the popular Reagan. Obama has popular appeal and McCain has been badmouthed by conservatives for years. Besides that, McCain supports the war and a war against Iran, which is completely out of touch with the national mood. The circumstances are tremendously different.
As Irony said, it's a whole new paradigm. Saying "nationalized health care is socialism" isn't going to work anymore. We're not in the Cold War anymore, and there are millions of Americans who see a great personal need for such a plan. People will just say "if it's Marxism, let's try some Marxism...it has to be better than what we've seen the last eight years".
I think Obama is running as a liberal. A position I applaud. That's way more honest than pretending to be a 'moderate' like HRC has. My point is that liberals (the left) have tried to be coy about their designs for governing and it just makes them seem phony and repugnant, instead of being just repugnant.
For the most part, U.S. voters look on the idea of higher taxes and more wasteful government spending as repugnant. So, its an uphill struggle for any leftist to sell themselves as a viable candidate. Carter ran and won as a moderate (though he wasn't). Clinton ran as a centrist (though he wasn't). Even Nixon could beat a liberal!
It depends what you consider "wasteful" as. If people are getting something they want out of it, like health care, I think that will sell. On the other hand, more years of war in Iraq and a war in Iran might be considered "wasteful" by more people, and that's what McCain's trying to push.
Crying "librul!" just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Ed,
Since you think this is McGovern and '72 all over again, make the bet with me. I am proposing to give you $20,000 if Obama only wins one state and you give me $1000 if he wins more than that. Come on, Ed, put your money where your mouth is.
I'm a poor Republican. I don't have money to waste on frivolous wagers. It might happen that way, but I don't think it will. A poster above talked about how weak McCain is with the conservative base. I think McCain is a much poorer candidate than Bob Dole was.
But that doesn't mean that that I think Obama is a strong candidate. He is way too far left for the average American. But McCain (or any of the current GOP field) is no Reagan, and GW Bush has certainly left the GOP and the conservative movement in disarray.
The farther left the GOP can paint Obama, the better McCain's chances of being elected are. And the GOP won't have to 'swiftboat' Obama to paint him as a left wing radical. He is one.
Ed,
I will only take from this that you don't believe what you said. Name some votes in Congress made by Obama that you consider "far left." Then, when you are done with that, say what you think a good moderate would have voted. Specifically, outside of his religion, what makes you think he is "far left?"
What are the issues you see as dealbreakers and make you a Republican? How has Bush followed those tenets? How has McCain?
Finally, if its 1972 again and McCain is the weakest candidate since Dole, how do you see a rout coming on?
I never said he was a Marxist. I said if he believes what his Church believes, he is a left wing radical. His Church espouses a form of Marxism styled as 'Christian' by those who are so historically naive to think that Christianity doesn't have any discernible content. In addition, he is a member of a Church whose pastor promotes an racial ethnicity comparable to the racism held by the Nation of Islam. Obama calls Wright his 'mentor.'
And, by the way, Reagan ran as a conservative, BushI ran as a conservative, BushII ran as a conservative. Nixon ran on the Silent Majority (a conservative base). And Reagan really was a conservative. Carter ran as a southern 'moderate.' Clinton ran as a southern 'centrist.' Nobody runs as a left wing radical, except maybe Nader.
Obama has a chance to win in November, I can't think of a weaker candidate than McCain, except perhaps Bob Dole. But if he wins, the U.S. will lurch quickly leftward towards national socialism.
Wein wrat:
>>I never said he was a Marxist. I said if he believes what his Church believes, he is a left wing radical. His Church espouses a form of Marxism styled as 'Christian' by those who are so historically naive to think that Christianity doesn't have any discernible content. In addition, he is a member of a Church whose pastor promotes an racial ethnicity comparable to the racism held by the Nation of Islam. Obama calls Wright his 'mentor.'
This is a completely meaningless statement. You are simply asserting something without showing any proof. But the meaningless comes from the vague claims of each statement. *You* believe the church espouses a form of Marxism; that doesn't make it so. (What exactly does Marxism mean? It can mean almost anything to anybody!) Likewise, the second statement about ethnicity is totally void of content. How exactly is the Pastor promoting an agenda like the Nation of Islam?
In short, you are just spouting off derogotory statements that have no meaning.
Yes you pretty much did. THIS is what you said:
But Obama is definitely vulnerable on the charge of being a left wing radical, even a Marxist.
If that isnt saying he is a Marxist its a difference without a distinction. You really think just because you SAY something it becomes true dont you? Cough up their espousing of Marxism or show yourself out in disgrace for another in a looong line of baseless assertions without merit. You just spew stupid talking points and WISH they were true or that they would magically become true. His pastor seems to like Farrakhan and he can be legitimatly criticized for it. Obama has done so. Saying it is more like the Nation of Islam than Christianity is blatantly stupid. You can keep spewing this BS it has already been gone over plenty of times its garbage. You really like the little game you have going where if the black community DOESNT preach self reliance they are playing victims and if they do they are seperatists. We arent dumb enough to buy it. Just because a rightwing hivemind bloviator said it or a rightwing website said it doesnt make it true and you havent even TRIED to substantiate the sewage you are spewing.
Solon;
It's always such a pleasure to discourse with you. Your consistent respect and deep desire to explore other perspectives for greater truth are so refreshing...
Jeremiah Wright is a proponent of liberation theology. Liberation theology is little more than Marxism dressed up in Christian clothes. It bears little resemblance to historic Christianity. The similarity is verbal - Liberation Theology uses Christian terminology but invests the terms with Marxist class struggle concepts.
Here's a quote from tucc.org, the website for Obama's homeChurch:
"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology."
In an article from the National Catholic Reporter, "Key Principles of Liberation Theology:"
"Liberation theology places a premium on social analysis. To remedy injustice, they believe, one must first understand the social mechanisms that produce it. To do this, many liberation theologians were drawn to Marxism."
TUCC's website says this: "We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization....We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community." (underlining mine)
Imagine a white congregation presenting themselves as "We are a European people, and remain true to Europe..." having a "white worship service, and ministries which address the white community." That's not a Christian expression. Neither is TUCC's. Certainly there have been many racists among Christians, but racial bigotry is not a tenet of historic Christianity.
TUCC is certainly racially oriented and seemingly separatist. Their vision is derived from a Marxist deviation from historic Christianity, Liberation Theology. Mr. Obama's association with that Church indicates that he is in sympathy with their vision and theology.
If you expect to see respect from MY posts you will stop showing contempt and stupidity toward the left in YOUR Posts. When you associate leftists with Hitler and saying the only accomplishment of the left is abortion you leave respect far behind and cannot expect anything from me other than the same level of contempt. You havent earned it and dont deserve it. I know EXACTLY what liberation theology is. I remember its growth in Central America in the 80's. It IS bibilical. Perhaps you never noticed the strong social responsibility message in the prophets or that Acts shows the apostles talking about how they live which reads like a socialst tract.
Acts 2 44/45: 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
I dont really care how anyone divides up the cookies. The liberation theology grew out of the depravation of the poor in Central America and an attempt to organize them to get their basic needs met. It was also called the preferential treatment for the poor. There are at least a couple of thousand verses in the bible that advocate helping the poor. As for the UCC as I said its a really cute game you have going. Where if the black community DOESNT try to empower themselves they are playing at being victims and when they do they are seperatists. You cannot compare the white community with the black community. WE have the power. When we say we are keeping it in OUR community we are excluding others from advancing. The black community keeping their resources among their own isnt keeping US down we ARENT down. That is a simplistic take when the average black income is pretty close to the same as the average white income you will have a point. We arent there. I am glad to have this kind of discussion and am very capable of doing so. IF you prefer this kind of discussion why dont you leave your denigration of and contempt for liberals out of YOUR posts and I will leave my contempt for and denigration of YOU out of mine.
Jonah Goldberg is an American Fascist, Reich-wing propagandist for the gullible.
On Che, my admiration for Che be quickly evaporated when I learned that Che, far more than Castro, was a big time proponent of pushing the then USSR into a strategic nuclear war with America.
How would have guessed that Krustiev would be the sane one.
Dude, Che had wet dreams about global, NUCLEAR WAR... think about that, k?
I'll say this about Obama, he is versatile.
_____
He'll get even more versatile as the right-wing hate machine cranks up.
Versatile? Yea... I'm waiting for the story about the sex change operation. ;>)
You have to think that there is some method to this madness, such as if focus groups show that X% will not vote for Obama because he's a Muslim; Y% won't vote for him because he's a racist; Z% won't vote for him because he hates America; etc., etc. That way the attack dogs don't have to stick to one lie. In fact, the more lies the better. People don't have to believe all of the crazy stories about Obama not to vote for him. All they have to believe is one.
Just to show you how crazy they are, look at the hot topics being discussed on Sean Hannity's message boards:
Video proof that Obama may be anti-Christ!
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=554661
Someone told me that Obama has a tattoo...
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=554581
You couldn't make up crazier stuff if you tried. ;>)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
the inevitable B.S. that will be flung his way.
Hannity and his Christian right wackos are every bit as scary as anything taught by extreme Islamic fanatics. To them, reading a Harry Potter book is pagonistic. You are to only worship their gods, angels, and saints - believe in their demons and dragons - and believe in their fire and brimstone fairy tales. At least Hairy Potter readers know they are being entertained with fantasy – these people live their lives based on one!
Anyone who would put myths from a 1st Century Comic Book over intelligent thought and logic really creeps me out. They are what I FEAR most in this world - not their stories and myths, but THEM.
And, Cleve, consider this... Presidential candidates are routinely accused of being many unsavory things by thier critics. Would Barack Obama be the first candidate for President accused of being an evil supernatural being? ;>)
This is really comic book stuff. I hope the reat of the world isn't watching. ;>)
Ignorance is so comforting. Obama is a member of a black separatist church on Chicago's south side. The church is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, the denominational structure being a truly radical left wing institution, both theologically and politically.
Obama's Church embraces an 'Afro-centrism' that has more in common with the Nation of Islam than it does with historic Christianity. In addition, the Church leadership espouses 'Liberation Theology,' which is only Marxism dressed up in Christian terms.
Perhaps Obama's religious affiliation is merely a matter of personal convenience. But more likely, his choice of a black separatist church that tries to redefine Christianity into a Marxist tool is a matter of conscience.
Obama appears to be a left wing radical.
What's ignorant is that you're repeating things that have been disproven time and time again, and yet, here you are repeating these same things again. Fact, if Obama's church were 'black separatist' as you say that it is; why do they have white members of the same 'black separatist' church? That alone destroys any argument ANYONE could have about his church being black separatist, whatever that means. Now if you said that he attended a majority black church, this would be possibly correct. But then again, I live in the South, and have attended many different churches in my short time that I've lived here. Here's the thing. Black churches are, well, black churches, and white churches, are, well, white churches, and it's not that often that the 2 shall cross over into each other. There are a few exceptions, but not too many.
I thought jokers like you would LOVE Obama's church, because they "don't play the victim" of being black. Meaning, yes, they have embraced their ethnic backgrounds, and have tried to make positive changes within their own black community, and yes, they tell their worshippers to empower themselves, and to do things for themselves, because nobody else is going to do it for them. How is that bad? Explain THAT to me?
Until then, you keep repeating the talking points like they're true. I'm sure you have an e-mail inbox full of crap like this.
"Ignorance is so comforting"
Thanks for including that introductory statement in your post. Without it, everything that followed it may have been taken as your true thoughts, rather than examples of comforting ignorance.
Ignorance is so comforting. Obama is a member of a black separatist church on Chicago's south side. The church is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, the denominational structure being a truly radical left wing institution, both theologically and politically.
Black separatist church? What? The United Church of Christ is radically left wing? What? You can examine their beliefs HERE. That doesn't sound radical to me, but the lack of central authority might bother you because you wouldn't have anybody to tell you what to think.
Obama's Church embraces an 'Afro-centrism' that has more in common with the Nation of Islam than it does with historic Christianity. In addition, the Church leadership espouses 'Liberation Theology,' which is only Marxism dressed up in Christian terms.
Do you even understand what you have posted here? Maybe you think that because Rev. Jeremiah White has spoken favorably of Farrakhan that the Trinity United Church of Christ is equivalent to the Nation of Islam, which simply shows a lack of understanding of either. Are you honestly unaware that Obama has publically decried Farrakhan, or are you conveniently ignoring it? Do you even know what Liberation Theology is? Are you offended by the "preferential option for the poor" that it espouses? If so, I suggest that you read the New Testament.
Perhaps Obama's religious affiliation is merely a matter of personal convenience. But more likely, his choice of a black separatist church that tries to redefine Christianity into a Marxist tool is a matter of conscience.
Obama appears to be a left wing radical.
It looks to me like you have decided what you want to believe and claim that the facts back you up, but you clearly do not understand what you're saying. You are good at spouting talking points, though.
Sorry, no "talking points" here.
The UCC is largely apostate from historic Christianity.
The local UCC Church Obama belongs to gave Farrakhan some sort of 'man of the year' award not too long ago. If Obama has spoken out against Farrakhan, he needed to, because the people that he associates with and says he agrees with revere Farrakhan.
Liberation Theology redefines (actually, 'perverts' is probably closer to the truth) the message of Christianity in terms of social and economic justice rather than spiritual redemption.
If Wright (Obama's pastor) were a white man and espoused the kind of racial views Wright preaches, he would be justly denounced as a racist. But Wright says he can't be a racist, because he is black! Obama calls this man his 'mentor.'
If Obama believes what his Church believes, he is politically a left wing radical. Unless he is merely a hypocrite, his membership in that Church reflects values that are antithetical to liberty and contradictory to historic Christianity.
Ed,
What do you think of McCain speaking at Bob Jones University? I guess that makes him a racist, right?
Silly you.
BJU is not a racist institution.
So that would make him a non-racist, I guess, huh?
Up until 2000, the campus did not allow interracial dating. Since you think approves of certain people by association, why can't I make the same logical leap? I guess we are both wrong, eh?
When are we making the bet about 1972? C'mon, Ed, put your money where your mouth is.
Yes it is.
Solon;
Thank you for your great illumination on the subject of being judgmental.
Here's a definition for you: 'bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.'
Sounds just like you.
So either I agree with you or I am a bigot? Hmmm let me give YOU a definition
mo·ron (môr
n
, m
r
-)
n. 1. A stupid person; a dolt.Sounds like YOUWein wrat:
>>Liberation Theology redefines (actually, 'perverts' is probably closer to the truth) the message of Christianity in terms of social and economic justice rather than spiritual redemption.
First, I'm not sure that Obama's church even follows liberation theology. But even if it did, your definition of Christianity is purely subjective--are as most sects of Christianity. How many zillions of sects of Christianity are there, and each one claims that their sect is the true one.
So simply saying that you don't believe Obama's church represents true Christianity is a meaningless statement.
The UCC is largely apostate from historic Christianity.
Apostasy is the forsaking of one's religion/beliefs. You either do not understand what this means, you are of the opinion that most Christianity today is "apostate from historic Christianity" or you do not understand what the UCC espouses. In any case, I am not sure what you are claiming here.
Liberation Theology does not redefine the message of Christianity; I suggest you actually examine the link I provided above.
It is clear that you have decided what you want to believe and it does not matter whether your claims are accurate. Why are you wasting our time?
HG;
I went to your link. Here's the relevant quote: "The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith." In other words, the UCC doesn't affirm any of them. You can believe them or not and still be a 'member in good standing' among the UCC brethren. But unfortunately for the UCC, the documents and creeds they "receive" require a commitment to their truthfulness. If you do not agree with the Apostles' Creed, for instance, you have a different faith than those who wrote that creed. There is a specific content to Christianity. Both the UCC and liberation theologians would like to ignore that hard fact.
You state that liberation theology doesn't redefine Christianity. Salvation in historic Christianity is not economic liberation or a social justice issue. Salvation is primarily in one's relationship with God, a receiving of a new life, forgiveness for sin and the hope of eternal life, flowing out of the death and resurrection of God's Son, Jesus Christ.
You know, I never saw the name of Jesus anywhere on the TUCC site. Strange, isn't it, that a Church would fail to honor their God?
Ed,
Who do you think should deal with the problems of the black community in this country? Who is best equipped? If you think its the black community itself, are they separatists?
"There is a specific content to Christianity. Both the UCC and liberation theologians would like to ignore that hard fact."
You state that liberation theology doesn't redefine Christianity. Salvation in historic Christianity is not economic liberation or a social justice issue. Salvation is primarily in one's relationship with God, a receiving of a new life, forgiveness for sin and the hope of eternal life, flowing out of the death and resurrection of God's Son, Jesus Christ.
Liberation Theology does not exclude salvation, it INCLUDES social awareness. Look at the Gospels, this idea is not new.
You keep referencing historical Christianity. Are you of the opinion that there has ever been ONE type of Christianity? Christianity started off as a Jewish messianic movement. In the early church there were several different movements (such as Gnosticism) that competed for dominance. There has always been tension between the eastern and western churches, culminating in 1054 with the split of Orthodox and Catholicism, and even then there was a difference between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism. Since the Reformation there have been innumerable divisions among Protestants ranging from Fundamentalism to Unitarian Universalism and everything in between. There are several sects today that each insist that only their small denomination truly understands what Jesus said. There have always been different theologies throughout "historical" Christianity.
"If Wright (Obama's pastor) were a white man and espoused the kind of racial views Wright preaches, he would be justly denounced as a racist."
And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'. This nonsense has been torn up multiple times here. If someone preaches "black power", that doesn't mean they want to be superior to white people. They're coming from a position of social disadvantage. If someone preaches "white power", what are they fighting for, if not to keep their social advantage?
If it was someone espousing white solidarity, then yes that would be racist. But since the two scenarios carry completely different meanings, the substitution is completely invalid.
Oh I see, the liberal position is: these poor black folk - why, they needs a little extra help. Can't hold them to a colorblind standard, why, they's disadvantaged.
What a load of cr*p.
Wright, Obama's "mentor" denies being a racist because he is black! Same argument as above (brabantio), and just as specious. A person who discriminates either for or against another on the basis of racial heritage or skin color is acting as a racist, whatever his skin color. Why is that so hard for leftists to understand?
Racism is reprehensible, either among whites, blacks, or any color. It should be condemned soundly. I commend Obama for distancing himself from Farrakhan, he should do the same with Wright.
Before you tear me limb from limb, let me affirm that I understand 'institutional' racism. But the answer is really very simple: two wrongs don't make a right.
Blacks who try and deal with the problems aren't separatist, necessarily, as far as I know. People who honor flakes like Farrakhan are honoring bigots. Wright wrote about Farrakhan when his Church's magazine awarded Farrakhan a 'Lifetime Achievement' award.
In the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan, whom he helped in organizing the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Wright lauded Farrakhan as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st centuries.
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens,” Wright said. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
Hailing Farrakhan’s “integrity and honesty,” Wright said, “His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.”
Praise for a religiously motivated racist bigot. Farrakhan is about as 'inspiring' as Che Guevara. What inspiring friends Obama has.
"Before you tear me limb from limb, let me affirm that I understand 'institutional' racism. But the answer is really very simple: two wrongs don't make a right."
I forgot about the "two wrongs don't make a right" chestnut. Let's get down to the bone of the argument. Do you believe black people are equal to white people? Intelligence, character, morals, given identical upbringing and environments?
If you don't, then it's really simple. You're a racist, by definition.
If you do, then you realize that a great injustice has been wrought upon these people. And it seems to me that this is a pretty easy set of priorities to straighten out. Are you really more concerned with the "racism" of black people recognizing their own color, their own situation, and showing unity in an effort to rise above it than the hundreds of years of slavery, bigotry, disenfranchisement, disrespect, and second-class citizenship that they've endured?
It seems to boil down to "sorry about all that...but you can't unify based on your race because that would be wrong...somehow". That's a very strange sense of priorities there. I wonder how many people share that view with you who condone torture. Even if the person being tortured was an actual terrorist, was involved in a plot which killed Americans, and had information that would help catch other terrorists, intentionally causing pain or torment to someone is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right. Right?
And herein lies the problem with Golberg.
He has a NY Times bestselling book, on last check it was at #2 on their list. He wrote this article in the LA Times, which isn't what most would call a "small" newspaper. He has an editorial position at The National Review, which, like it or not, is a pretty prominent conservative magazine and on-line magazine. He has a huge exposure to people. I think he spent the last entire week on Glen Beck's show on CNN. He is of course allowed to peddle his junk, and some folks lap it up, and that's the problem. We, who may be better informed than some, can destroy his arguments, and his positions quite easily using facts, and information, but for most who don't bother to read and or look into things, his stances on say, liberalism being equated to fascism ring true for a lot of people. And it's scary. He should be attacked in the mainstream for his ideas, and stances on issues because people like him NEED to be discredited, and they NEED to be discredited loudly, so that all can hear and see.
Yeah, I'm SURE that's how it goes. What kind of proof does anyone hold up for this anyway? The fact that because the right wing talk show hosts rail against McCain and yet, people still voted for him. They don't have any influence? Hmm, I guess call me "old fashioned" and all, but generally those who can get out the message more, and louder usually get paid attention to is all I'm saying. I know your comment was tongue in cheek, but it just doesn't reflect what most of us (you included) call, you know, reality.
In the Democratic debate this week, maybe moderators can resist the temptation to repeat healthcare questions for the billionth time and instead ask America's foremost liberal representatives why being a radical means never having to say you're sorry.
Someone needs to ask Jonah Goldberg why being a conservative means never having to tell the truth....
Read the whole article and see who else Obama, Hillary and the left sees as 'heroes'.
Check this out and let's hope that somebody in the media stops giving cover to Obama about this easily disputed Farrahkan connection instead of asking him about his connections with those wonderful bastions of society that Goldberg mentions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html