We may hate it at the time but we all eventually turn into what our parents were.

“This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk.”

100% truth from Dowd.

Scream it louder……

Anyone who uses the term “and their ilk” should automatically be disqualified from civil discourse.
Maureen, with that single assanine phrase, you identified yourself as another elitist Joe Klein. NOT GOOD.
Maybe your friends will send you a another pipe for Christmas.

Oh no an elitist who uses big words! Must talk dumber for us plain folk.

paulmdoro said:
Oh no an elitist who uses big words! Must talk dumber for us plain folk.

Ignorance is much treasured by the rightists posters and their ilk.

shootfromthehip said:
“This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk.” 100% truth from Dowd. Scream it louder……

Hear! Hear!

I wonder if these people even read Obama’s book. D’Souza’s article makes a pretty good case for him being an anti-colonialist. I’ve personally been looking into it myself, and Obama seems to fit that mold. Anti-colonialism is big in South America and partly responsible for the rise of guys like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

Why would Obama adopt policies that hinder our own economic growth, yet support other countries doing what he opposes here? Why would he send so much $ to Brazil for offshore drilling that won’t benefit us in any way while opposing that here?

Haimerej said:
I wonder if these people even read Obama’s book. D’Souza’s article makes a pretty good case for him being an anti-colonialist. I’ve personally been looking into it myself, and Obama seems to fit that mold. Anti-colonialism is big in South America and partly responsible for the rise of guys like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

Why would Obama adopt policies that hinder our own economic growth, yet support other countries doing what he opposes here? Why would he send so much $ to Brazil for offshore drilling that won’t benefit us in any way while opposing that here?

Looking into it? With Jerome Corsi’s help? Let us know what you find out. Also, are aliens real? How about Big Foot?

shootfromthehip said:
“This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk.”

100% truth from Dowd.

Scream it louder……

Seconded. We have serious issues to address. These hateful opportunist who don’t care how ugly it gets need to be shut down and turned off. The media needs to stop giving this guy a pulpit.

Haimerej said:

Why would Obama adopt policies that hinder our own economic growth, yet support other countries doing what he opposes here? Why would he send so much $ to Brazil for offshore drilling that won’t benefit us in any way while opposing that here?

Look at past presidents and the contradictions between domestic policy and foreign policy. It’s a pattern. Creating a new scare word isn’t necessary.

paulmdoro said:
Looking into it? With Jerome Corsi’s help? Let us know what you find out. Also, are aliens real? How about Big Foot?

No, I’m looking into anti-colonialism as a political philosophy. It started when my brother forced me to watch “The End of Poverty?” narrated by Martin Sheen. Personally, I find it to be an excuse that current political leaders use to cover their own failings. When their countries remain poor after being decolonized, they can’t accept that it has to do with their own government being corrupt or incompetent. It’s still the fault of the West. Many South American countries use it (Bolivia being one of the main focuses in that film) and some African countries as well. A former Jamaican president is big on it since he was such a failure to his people.

CosmosDan said:
Look at past presidents and the contradictions between domestic policy and foreign policy. It’s a pattern. Creating a new scare word isn’t necessary.

It’s not a “new scare word.” It’s a real philosophy that is strongly held in poor countries that were once colonized by the west.

For example, Bolivia blames it’s current poverty on the fact that Spain took so much of it’s silver after being colonized. Many South American countries blame their current poverty on the colonization of European people to their countries. They say that’s why the West is so much richer than them. The problem is that there are several examples of former colonies that have less resources and have become strong economies due to their government’s economic policies.

As I said before, I see this philosophy to be a way for failed politicians to pass the blame to the West when they can’t figure out how to get their people out of poverty.

paulmdoro said:
Looking into it? With Jerome Corsi’s help? Let us know what you find out. Also, are aliens real? How about Big Foot?

Also, I don’t even know who Jerome Corsi is.

Newt loves his third wife, God, America and Fox News.

CosmosDan said:
The media needs to stop giving this guy a pulpit.

When the media stops giving Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangle, Bob Beckel, Arianna Huffington, Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, Al Sharpton and all the other loons on the left a forum then they could consider Newt.

Consider the response to Gingrich-

No one has addressed the substance of the accusation. I’ve seen people like Matthews say that it’s about racism or trying to insinuate Obama’s not American. I think they’re doing that because they don’t want to have to address the fact that anti-colonialism is a real philosophy held by people of a leftward bent.

Many anti-colonialist’s today see the IMF and World Bank as the “new colonialism.” They accuse them of forcing governments to take loans they can’t repay as a way for the West to somehow get control of their resources. Guys have written books about this stuff. To me, it’s seeing a conspiracy where simple incompetence suffices.

Firstly, how does one force a government to take a loan? In order to close that hole, you have someone like John Perkins claiming that corporations will threaten political leaders with assassination. Oooookay….

Secondly, once the loans are taken out (as with any loan) you have to pay it back. It seems in many cases, these countries are trying to hold onto un-profitable business ventures under the excuse of “culture” and then complaining that people in the world don’t want to pay them more money for stuff they can get from somewhere/someone else cheaper. This is kind of what happened in Jamaica with the president I alluded to earlier. They had rice farmers who wanted to keep farming rice, but no one would buy it because it was more expensive. Rather than doing what you or I would do and change your business plan, their idea was to bitch and moan and talk about how they’ve been doing that all their lives and blah blah blah. Well, if they want to be rice farmers and no one wants to buy their rice, then they’ll be poor. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s Economics 101.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Newt loves his third wife

At least until someone younger and blonder comes along.

paulmdoro said:
paulmdoro says:

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Newt loves his third wife

At least until someone younger and blonder comes along.

he slams adultery while committing adultery, leaves wife in hospital for another while preaching family values

If we follow the logic – He’s leaving the third for a Kenyan woman

“This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk. ”

Talk about your fear mongering… ALL intelligence is “cherry picked” and a discussion about a president’s psyche concerning the influence of his father (the president’s book was titled “Dreams from My Father”) is not a taboo subject simply because the man happens to be of color or because Birthers exist.

D’Souza is from India, a country with just a bit of a colonial history too…

If ANYTHING puts our country in danger, it’s the political machinations that suggest this sort of discussion is tantamount to BEING a racist or a Birther.

Dowd did much the same thing for Bill Clinton when she wrote column after column suggesting that the Lewinsky scandal was “just about sex” instead of a president using the power and the privilege of his office in order to cover up a sex scandal.

She’s an anti-intellectual fuzzy-brained dolt.

gordonbloyershow said:
When the media stops giving Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangle, Bob Beckel, Arianna Huffington, Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, Al Sharpton and all the other loons on the left a forum then they could consider Newt.

OKay Gordon. That’s a good point. There sure is a lot of BS out there. There’s a big difference though between partisan slant, which is okay for either side, and just plain hatefulness.

I think there’s a line and Newt’s Nazi comment crossed it for me, so I guess I’m more critical of him.

bugspot1 said:
he slams adultery while committing adultery, leaves wife in hospital for another while preaching family values

If we follow the logic – He’s leaving the third for a Kenyan woman

Now that’s funny.

Haimerej said:
No, I’m looking into anti-colonialism as a political philosophy. It started when my brother forced me to watch “The End of Poverty?” narrated by Martin Sheen. Personally, I find it to be an excuse that current political leaders use to cover their own failings. When their countries remain poor after being decolonized, they can’t accept that it has to do with their own government being corrupt or incompetent. It’s still the fault of the West. Many South American countries use it (Bolivia being one of the main focuses in that film) and some African countries as well. A former Jamaican president is big on it since he was such a failure to his people.

Okay. How is that supposed to relate to our president?

Excuse me.. Who’s Maureen Dowd? Is she relevant somehow? Is this someone I should to know about? Does her opinion matter? Ok, maybe I’ll Google her or maybe not.

What was Newt’s Nazi comment?

CosmosDan said:
Okay. How is that supposed to relate to our president?

Those things I mentioned don’t necessarily relate, it was merely an attempt to explain the philosophy. Some people see the idea of bringing down the developed world and bringing up the undeveloped world in Obama’s policies. That’s essentially the “cure” to the problem of colonialism. Read D’Souza’s article. He articulates it better than I do.

Cecelia said:
If ANYTHING puts our country in danger, it’s the political machinations that suggest this sort of discussion is tantamount to BEING a racist or a Birther.

The comment as a whole is one of the more astute I’ve ever read from you, on this site or on the web. Thank you for the insight.

This could have been an excellent academic discussion. Unfortunately, political overtones and themes permeated the arguments. It was something like trying to understand Luther’s Eucharistic catechism. Logic and faith could not be separated even if in doing so the argument might have been all the stronger.

Thank you, again.

Haimerej said:
Those things I mentioned don’t necessarily relate, it was merely an attempt to explain the philosophy. Some people see the idea of bringing down the developed world and bringing up the undeveloped world in Obama’s policies. That’s essentially the “cure” to the problem of colonialism. Read D’Souza’s article. He articulates it better than I do.

Colonialism, even benign colonialism is an evil, to be sure, and there are, in fact, many who believe that colonial subjects ought be empowered to cast out this evil. Surely, you can’t take exception to that.

Haimerej said:
Consider the response to Gingrich-

No one has addressed the substance of the accusation. I’ve seen people like Matthews say that it’s about racism or trying to insinuate Obama’s not American. I think they’re doing that because they don’t want to have to address the fact that anti-colonialism is a real philosophy held by people of a leftward bent.

The first question asked is does the accusation have any substance. Nobody should have spend all their time defending themselves against every bullshit accusation that comes along. It may be a real philosophy but I seriously doubt there’s any credible evidence that it’s Obama’s philosophy.

This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk. Fear mongering with these kind of tactics is a common political tactic and it’s been pretty disgusting in the last few years. We need to find politicians who are willing to seriously discuss the issues at hand , not create BS to fill the airwaves.

Who gives a question a thumbs down? I asked what Newt’s “Nazi comment” was and it gets thumbed down? WTF?

The Real Royal King said:
Colonialism, even benign colonialism is an evil, to be sure, and there are, in fact, many who believe that colonial subjects ought be empowered to cast out this evil. Surely, you can’t take exception to that.

I don’t. I take exception with the belief that the current conditions of poverty in some former colonies is due to them being former colonies. That’s the new anti-colonialism.

The Real Royal King said:
This could have been an excellent academic discussion. Unfortunately, political overtones and themes permeated the arguments. It was something like trying to understand Luther’s Eucharistic catechism. Logic and faith could not be separated even if in doing so the argument might have been all the stronger.

But you’re not taking any chances… you’ll strike out against either or both depending upon political party…

Haimerej said:
I don’t. I take exception with the belief that the current conditions of poverty in some former colonies is due to them being former colonies. That’s the new anti-colonialism.

I agree.

I appreciate your contribution.

CosmosDan said:
The first question asked is does the accusation have any substance. Nobody should have spend all their time defending themselves against every bullshit accusation that comes along. It may be a real philosophy but I seriously doubt there’s any credible evidence that it’s Obama’s philosophy.

I’m not asking Obama to defend himself. I’m addressing the people who simply dismiss the accusation on it’s face without considering the argument made. That article is online and it’s 5 pages long. To say there is no argument made based on any evidence is due to your own laziness. Read the article before you dismiss it.

Haimerej said:
Those things I mentioned don’t necessarily relate, it was merely an attempt to explain the philosophy. Some people see the idea of bringing down the developed world and bringing up the undeveloped world in Obama’s policies. That’s essentially the “cure” to the problem of colonialism. Read D’Souza’s article. He articulates it better than I do.

Perhaps, but it seems to be a waste of time. We have specific policies and principles we can discuss without looking for some new negative label to use. Fear mongering turns socialism and anti colonialism into buzz words that are automatic negatives to evoke an emotional response. The connection to his Kenyan father and the references to his time abroad seems to suggest, “he’s not a real American” That’s not a discussion of the issues.

Haimerej said:
I’m not asking Obama to defend himself. I’m addressing the people who simply dismiss the accusation on it’s face without considering the argument made. That article is online and it’s 5 pages long. To say there is no argument made based on any evidence is due to your own laziness. Read the article before you dismiss it.

Fair enough

CosmosDan said:
Perhaps, but it seems to be a waste of time. We have specific policies and principles we can discuss without looking for some new negative label to use. Fear mongering turns socialism and anti colonialism into buzz words that are automatic negatives to evoke an emotional response. The connection to his Kenyan father and the references to his time abroad seems to suggest, “he’s not a real American” That’s not a discussion of the issues.

That’s almost a word for word Chris Matthews talking point.

There was no fear mongering. It was an analysis of, as the article states, “How Obama Thinks.” D’Souza used his own experience growing up in an anti-colonial environment as a reference point. He doesn’t even condemn the philosophy, IIRC. He merely lays out the similarity between Obama’s policies and anti-colonial ideology. Why is it off limits to talk about Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals? He wrote a book about it, so it’s not like it’s secret. I don’t see how talking about what shaped his ideals is implying that “he’s not a real American.” That’s lazy talking point garbage used by people like Matthews to keep people like yourself ignorant of what the article was saying.

Also, “socialism and anti-colonialism” aren’t simply “buzz words.” They are real philosophies with real world consequences.

CosmosDan said:
Fear mongering turns socialism and anti colonialism into buzz words that are automatic negatives to evoke an emotional response. The connection to his Kenyan father and the references to his time abroad seems to suggest, “he’s not a real American” That’s not a discussion of the issues.

Well, since you haven’t read the article and don’t seem to want to discuss it, who among us is using buzzwords?

Gingrich has always been a white supremacist. When he first became speaker, his guest of honor was racist pseudo-scientist Charles Murray, who argued in The Bell Curve that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. So calling Obama a Mau Mau is what anyone should expect from a creep like Gingrich.

Cecelia said:
Well, since you haven’t read the article and don’t seem to want to discuss it, who among us is using buzzwords?

I didn’t discuss it further because I hadn’t read it. I wasn;t accusing anybody here of using buzzwords. I saying that a very common tactic in politics that I’ve observed in the past few years is to create a buzzword , make sure you give it lots of negative connotations, {rather than rational honest analysis} and keep repeating it until your target audience has a negative emotional response whenever they hear it. Both parties do it. The question is how connected is it to any reality?What tacticians like Rove have done is to disregard reality and use anything to create
a negative image. It doesn’t matter if it’s honest or reasonable, because the target audience votes more from emotion and partisan bias is willing to make the unreasonable leap and accept BS as being true.

god forbid anyone have an opinion and not get it run by the intellectual aristocracy, the NYT would be their left hand.

new front page stories ‘The only views allowed from now on of President Obama are positive ones”

subline ‘report all others to http://www.transform.gov‘

CosmosDan said:
I didn’t discuss it further because I hadn’t read it. I wasn;t accusing anybody here of using buzzwords. I saying that a very common tactic in politics that I’ve observed in the past few years is to create a buzzword , make sure you give it lots of negative connotations, {rather than rational honest analysis} and keep repeating it until your target audience has a negative emotional response whenever they hear it. Both parties do it. The question is how connected is it to any reality?What tacticians like Rove have done is to disregard reality and use anything to create
a negative image. It doesn’t matter if it’s honest or reasonable, because the target audience votes more from emotion and partisan bias is willing to make the unreasonable leap and accept BS as being true.

You always bring dialogue, and seem to want to learn
like your posts

Haimerej said:
That’s almost a word for word Chris Matthews talking point.

Don’t watch Chris but perhaps the similarity is because it’s fairly obvious and a tactic we’ve seen quite often.

There was no fear mongering. It was an analysis of, as the article states, “How Obama Thinks.” D’Souza used his own experience growing up in an anti-colonial environment as a reference point

I’m having a hard time understanding how you read that as just an analysis and not fear mongering. Why if it’s just an analysis of a philosophy why do you suppose he dedicated a paragraph to Obama Srs moral failings. Since those have nothing to do with the philosophy I assume it was added to help the overall negative impression. He’s playing on the socialism foundation already laid. about Obama. This observation by Dowd cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning seems right on to me. A couple of examples
He mentions a paper Obama’s father wrote in 1965, picks out a damming quote, and then says;

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

He admits that Obama’s father had very little contact with him but claims it’s remakable Obama hasn’t publicly mentioned his father’s article? Why the hell would we expect him to? Then he makes a stab at the “liberal media” that must be in league with Obama because there hasn’t been any reporting on this article that obviously {in his contrived association} has influenced Obama’s policies.
I could go into more specifics but the most glaring thing to me was how he makes a point about Obama’s book
What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.
builds the case about Obama Sr’s views, assumes as fact that these are Obama’s positions as well, and then finds a total of three quotes from that book that barely support his conclusion, if at all.
It’s not thoughtful analysis. It’s biased speculation with using tortured logic to support an agenda.

. He doesn’t even condemn the philosophy, IIRC. He merely lays out the similarity between Obama’s policies and anti-colonial ideology. Why is it off limits to talk about Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals? He wrote a book about it, so it’s not like it’s secret. I don’t see how talking about what shaped his ideals is implying that “he’s not a real American.” That’s lazy talking point garbage used by people like Matthews to keep people like yourself ignorant of what the article was saying.

Also, “socialism and anti-colonialism” aren’t simply “buzz words.” They are real philosophies with real world consequences.

CosmosDan said:
Don’t watch Chris but perhaps the similarity is because it’s fairly obvious and a tactic we’ve seen quite often.

I’m having a hard time understanding how you read that as just an analysis and not fear mongering. Why if it’s just an analysis of a philosophy why do you suppose he dedicated a paragraph to Obama Srs moral failings. Since those have nothing to do with the philosophy I assume it was added to help the overall negative impression. He’s playing on the socialism foundation already laid. about Obama. This observation by Dowd cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning seems right on to me. A couple of examples
He mentions a paper Obama’s father wrote in 1965, picks out a damming quote, and then says;

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

He admits that Obama’s father had very little contact with him but claims it’s remakable Obama hasn’t publicly mentioned his father’s article? Why the hell would we expect him to? Then he makes a stab at the “liberal media” that must be in league with Obama because there hasn’t been any reporting on this article that obviously {in his contrived association} has influenced Obama’s policies.
I could go into more specifics but the most glaring thing to me was how he makes a point about Obama’s book
What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.
builds the case about Obama Sr’s views, assumes as fact that these are Obama’s positions as well, and then finds a total of three quotes from that book that barely support his conclusion, if at all.
It’s not thoughtful analysis. It’s biased speculation with using tortured logic to support an agenda.

. He doesn’t even condemn the philosophy, IIRC. He merely lays out the similarity between Obama’s policies and anti-colonial ideology. Why is it off limits to talk about Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals? He wrote a book about it, so it’s not like it’s secret. I don’t see how talking about what shaped his ideals is implying that “he’s not a real American.” That’s lazy talking point garbage used by people like Matthews to keep people like yourself ignorant of what the article was saying.

Also, “socialism and anti-colonialism” aren’t simply “buzz words.” They are real philosophies with real world consequences.

Thanks for doing the research – I have spent hours researching only to have a sentence or statement make a completely oblivious argument to the document a a whole

Did not read the first book – read 2/3 of second – enough to know who he is instead of being afraid of the various crap in 2008

jk76 said:
god forbid anyone have an opinion and not get it run by the intellectual aristocracy, the NYT would be their left hand.

new front page stories ‘The only views allowed from now on of President Obama are positive ones”

subline ‘report all others to http://www.transform.gov‘

There’s a big difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. There’s also a difference in an opinion that is reasonable and well thought out, and one with little regard for reason.
We have plenty of good reasons to complain about what’s going on in Washington. We don’t need contrived BS speculation.

bugspot1 said:
You always bring dialogue, and seem to want to learn
like your posts

Thanks. I enjoy yours as well. It’s nice to see more than an exchange of insults and ridiculous partisan rhetoric.

CosmosDan said:
There’s a big difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. There’s also a difference in an opinion that is reasonable and well thought out, and one with little regard for reason.
We have plenty of good reasons to complain about what’s going on in Washington. We don’t need contrived BS speculation.

ABSOLUTELY

my eyes glaze over with the insults – I think many glaze over your quote from Lincoln

Moderate said:
We may hate it at the time but we all eventually turn into what our parents were.

Some of us make a conscious effort all our lives to never be what our parents were, simply because we realize we have to break the cycle in order to survive and not to pass on the same mindset and behavior to our own children.

But for the ones who do turn into their parents, I think it’s normally more what one is exposed to growing up on a daily basis — the environment within which all learning and value-forming and ambitions (or lack thereof) take shape — rather than a simple biologic connection.

Much as I disgaree with the President’s policies, I don’t think his father was enough of an influence on the formative years of his life to shape the core of his person. Maybe he holds some sympathy for his father’s positions after trying to understand him, but it seems the bottom line is that the guy was overall an utter disappointment to the President, not an inspiration.

That’s not to say other father-type figures or male mentors in his life could not have had a major influence. I would imagine a fatherless little boy/young man would be like a sponge soaking up the knowledge and ideology of an older male who gave him attention and love. I think I’d look more in that direction for influence, not toward the ideology of his biological father.

I’ve said before, I’ll point it out again: the things coming out of Gingrich’s mouth reminds me of the eugenics fueled writings of H.P. Lovecraft. Racism so thick and misinformed it’s flabbergasting. Coupled with the connivance of a politician: simply breath taking.

S c o t t says, “Time and tide wait for no man.” I think ” F a t e and l ov e wait for no one!” So I recently joined a ice platfom *****BlackW hiteC upi d.c000 m ***** to find my tr-ue LO-VE….Im lucky!! It is destined that you can also m-e-et your lo-v-e…..GO and have a try…

kipo[

Arkansas Steve said:
Anyone who uses the term “and their ilk” should automatically be disqualified from civil discourse.Maureen, with that single assanine phrase, you identified yourself as another elitist Joe Klein. NOT GOOD.Maybe your friends will send you a another pipe for Christmas.

Sorry you couldn’t understand the meaning of that phrase, Steve. Perhaps if you had listened more in junior high English, you might have at least gotten the context. And if you mean that YOU understand it, but that a lot of other folks won’t, then you are being condescending to a lot of people. For shame!

I wanted to finish my reply. I hope you stop back by to read it.

Haimerej said:

He doesn’t even condemn the philosophy, IIRC. He merely lays out the similarity between Obama’s policies and anti-colonial ideology

While the presentation itself is calm rather than a rant, it’s obviously presented as a negative.

. Why is it off limits to talk about Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals? He wrote a book about it, so it’s not like it’s secret. I don’t see how talking about what shaped his ideals is implying that “he’s not a real American.”

I didn’t say it’s off limits. It’s not. If you’re sincerely concerned, how about reading his book for balance.
First D,Souza needs to have some clear and convincing evidence that Obama had any serious relationship with his fathers ideals. As I said, he makes a rather big deal out of the use of “from” in Obama’s book title and then after providing all the negatives about that philosophy he only provides 3 quotes from the book that kinda sorta might possibly indicate Obama valued those ideals. It’s bad reasoning with little evidence using cherry picked quotes to provide a platform for negatives. It’s bears almost no resemblance to a scholastic well reasoned analysis. It’s also a set up for the book he’s got coming out.

That’s lazy talking point garbage used by people like Matthews to keep people like yourself ignorant of what the article was saying.

It was lazy, so I did go and read the article. You’ll have to take my word that I did not watch Chris or anybody else. My first exposure to the article was here. I did have a knee jerk reaction because I’ve seen that kind of dishonest political crap repeatedly over the last few years and it pisses me off.

Also, “socialism and anti-colonialism” aren’t simply “buzz words.” They are real philosophies with real world consequences.

I agree that they are real philosophies. They become negative buzzwords and scare tactics when you have folks like Beck holding up a hammer and sickle and swastika while repeating it over and over. It becomes a scare tactic when members of a GOP congressman’s audience claim that Gelnn Beck taught them Obama was a socialist and when he suggest they turn Beck off he gets booed and shouted down. Their own elected official who is advocating informed, reasonable, ffact based discourse, is shouted down.,They become fear mongering when you state as fact that Obama believes certain things without providing any serious evidence. People who already dislike Obama and want to believe the worst overlook the lack of evidence and embrace it. Yes, the Dems use a similar tactic which I object to just as much.
There certainly are socialist aspects of our nation and Obama’s policies. There may be aspects of our policies that resemble anti colonialism. To make the leap that because of a few overlapping similarities Obama must embrace Communist Socialism or cherry picked quotes of anti colonialism is intellectually dishonest and serving a political agenda rather than real understanding and communication.
He mentioned some things about policy at the beginning of the article that are interesting and I’d like to explore further but IMO an real exploration requires hearing both sides of an argument, not just a clearly and heavily biased one {noting everyone has some bias.}
Saying, Oh No Socialism , or , OMG it’s anti colonialism is a generalization that doesn’t serve a useful purpose. It may be intellectually interesting to see bits of specific philosophies in policy but the reality is that philosophies overlap each other and people are very capable of pulling out positive aspects of philosophies and rejecting the negative so the labeling of socialism or anti colonialism don’t really serve a purpose.
I think our time and efforts are much better spent by discussing very specific policy that we have here and now and the underlying principles. Medicare isn’t automatically negative because it’s socialist. Let’s discuss the real life impact on real people and society as a whole. The same with foreign policy. Social programs should be discussed in terms of real world help they provide vs fiscal realities and limits and the principle of personal responsibility vs enabling. I’m convinced important issues are falling by the way side while we are being distracted by partisan bickering that articles like this encourage.

Bunny said:
Some of us make a conscious effort all our lives to never be what our parents were, simply because we realize we have to break the cycle in order to survive and not to pass on the same mindset and behavior to our own children.

But for the ones who do turn into their parents, I think it’s normally more what one is exposed to growing up on a daily basis — the environment within which all learning and value-forming and ambitions (or lack thereof) take shape — rather than a simple biologic connection.

Much as I disgaree with the President’s policies, I don’t think his father was enough of an influence on the formative years of his life to shape the core of his person. Maybe he holds some sympathy for his father’s positions after trying to understand him, but it seems the bottom line is that the guy was overall an utter disappointment to the President, not an inspiration.

That’s not to say other father-type figures or male mentors in his life could not have had a major influence. I would imagine a fatherless little boy/young man would be like a sponge soaking up the knowledge and ideology of an older male who gave him attention and love. I think I’d look more in that direction for influence, not toward the ideology of his biological father.

Thank you. Nice post

CosmosDan said:
I didn’t say it’s off limits. It’s not.

Really?

CosmosDan said:
Seconded. We have serious issues to address. These hateful opportunist who don’t care how ugly it gets need to be shut down and turned off. The media needs to stop giving this guy a pulpit.

Dude, you lie a lot.

Bunny said:

That’s not to say other father-type figures or male mentors in his life could not have had a major influence. I would imagine a fatherless little boy/young man would be like a sponge soaking up the knowledge and ideology of an older male who gave him attention and love. I think I’d look more in that direction for influence, not toward the ideology of his biological father.

AGREED

Pablo said:

Dude, you lie a lot.

Where is the lie?

facts?
reading?

bugspot1 said:
Where is the lie?

He says he never said the topic is off limits, when he’d actually said that those who bring it up should be shut down. That makes it off limits, no?

That’s just this thread. There are lots more in many others. I’ve noticed a pervasive pattern with old CosmosDan, especially the one where he likes to put words in other people’s mouths, with Jesus being a particular favorite. I though he’d make for some interesting conversations, but he turns out to mostly be a dishonest waste of time.

Pablo said:
Really?

Dude, you lie a lot.

It’s too bad you need to see it that way. I appreciate the fact that you value honesty. In another thread I made a careless mistake, acknowledged it immediately and apologized, Here you’re wrong about what exactly I’m talking about. Lying is about intent. I didn’t lie in either case, but evidently you prefer to call me a liar. Be my guest. I trust reasonable posters will see the difference.

I didn’t say it’s off limits.

That is a lie. You most certainly did.

Your prior very, very careless “mistake”, while evidencing a blatant disregard for the truth, is not the lies I’m referring to. If you don’t recall, I’d suggest you review. I tend to point them out when I see them.

What a party! For sure, there were a few decent Republican politicians, but it’s bye-bye time. Gingrich was always a flawed, know-it-all character. I always thought that eventually the Republican party would implode-the contradictions were too great. The modern Republican Party was built on the same foundation of resentment, anger, fear and bigotry that the Teabagging movement is using to such great effect except it was more focused on racism in the South in the 1950′s and 60′s. I get a kick out of the bloggers who keep reminding us that Lincoln was a Republican and that the Democrats were run by the racist Dixiecrats. My, how things have changed. Time and demographics are now working rapidly against the rightwing and we should expect some more stunts from these people as power finally slips from their grasp. But not even Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers will be able to save them.

Pablo said:
He says he never said the topic is off limits, when he’d actually said that those who bring it up should be shut down. That makes it off limits, no?

No. Sorry you missed the two different subjects I was referring to.
The specific subject you first quoted was what against was what? These hateful opportunist who don’t care how ugly it gets that’s who should be shut down.
the second subject that’s not off limits was what? Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals
there are two different things.
If someone has a well reasoned, fact based, honest approach to a subject matter I’m all for it. If someone intentionally distorts, Cherry picks, and uses faulty reasoning to inflate a negative, something all to common in politics, I encourage the media to not give them a pulpit. {but they will because they care more about ratings than honesty} You may disagree with my assessment of D,Souza and his article and that’s fine but I gave an honest opinion and since I was talking about two different subjects it wasn’t a lie. If I used the same standard you didn’t I might call you a “lying punk” at this point but I really don’t know if this was an honest or intentioanl misunderstanding. So I won’t. Let’s see if you can acknowledge a mistake.

That’s just this thread. There are lots more in many others. I’ve noticed a pervasive pattern with old CosmosDan, especially the one where he likes to put words in other people’s mouths, with Jesus being a particular favorite. I though he’d make for some interesting conversations, but he turns out to mostly be a dishonest waste of time.

Anybody with even a modicum of Bible study understands that the Bible is subject to interpretation and obviously those vary. You may disagree with my interpretation but to suggest that because I don’t see that your interpretation as correct makes me dishonest is ridiculous. {and that’s being kind}
In political and religious discussions there is a lot of interpretation of words and disagreements of exactly what conclusions can and should be drawn from available information. Honest opinions may or may not be misguided but they are not dishonest. You seem to be an honest person with strong convictions but for some reason the fact that I also argue my convictions and bring researched evidence with out backing down makes you want to paint me as dishonest.
I’m not fooling myself that my opinions are obviously the right ones. There have been a couple of posters here that have brought sound arguments and I’ve adjusted my view accordingly. That said, I expect people to bring facts and sound reasoning to a discussion in order to do that. Assertions with little evidence won’t cut it and neither will obviously flawed partisan reasoning from either side.
I hope you can correct your habit of selective reading and learn the difference between opinion and dishonesty.

Pablo said:
That is a lie. You most certainly did.

Your prior very, very careless “mistake”, while evidencing a blatant disregard for the truth, is not the lies I’m referring to. If you don’t recall, I’d suggest you review. I tend to point them out when I see them.

I’ve just explained in detail why you’re wrong. No I won’t go back and research a baseless claim. You made the accusation. You can back it up , or leave it an empty accusation.

I do value the truth which is why I went back, reread, and acknowledged a mistake. You OTOH never explained your disregard for the the qualifiers I pointed out that put your assertion in serious doubt. {unless I missed a later post.}

Beck interviewed this Ann Coulter in pants on his radio show yesterday:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/45475/

D’Sousa is nothing more than a reactionary crock pot, a slightly smarter version of Gordon Bloyer.

CosmosDan says: “I do value the truth which is why I went back, reread, and acknowledged a mistake.”

Hard to do. Got to swallow your pride and give your ego a clip up side the head with a hammer, but it’s that or lose credibility.

Some media commentators don’t acknowledge their mistakes, and should have no credibility. Somehow, it doesn’t work that way:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/interview-with-media-matters-chris.html

CosmosDan said:
{unless I missed a later post.}

and I guess I didn’t because I just checked.

GlennBeckReview said:
Hard to do. Got to swallow your pride and give your ego a clip up side the head with a hammer, but it’s that or lose credibility.

I think the truth, facts, good critical thinking skills , are much more valuable and respectable than being skilled in partisan BS. I also don’t mind acknowledging that humans occasionally make mistakes or a bad judgment call.

Some media commentators don’t acknowledge their mistakes, and should have no credibility. Somehow, it doesn’t work that way:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/interview-with-media-matters-chris.html you’re right. partisan emotion gets the best of our thinking. I know we all have some bias but if we’re at least aware of it rather than blindly insisting on being right, we might learn something form each other. I try to judge politicians, pundits and posters with the same standard. I don’t always succeed but I continue to make an effort.

The specific subject you first quoted was what against was what? These hateful opportunist who don’t care how ugly it gets that’s who should be shut down.
the second subject that’s not off limits was what? Obama’s relationship with his father’s ideals
there are two different things.

The specific first? Gingrich. His subject? Obama’s father. Lie, lie, lie.

This is why I stopped bothering with you.

CosmosDan said:
and I guess I didn’t because I just checked.

i gave up

Pablo said:
The specific first? Gingrich. His subject? Obama’s father. Lie, lie, lie.

This is why I stopped bothering with you.

Try and comprehend,{I suspect you do} that the person, and the subject are clearly two different things.
I’m am very clearly talking about the dishonest style of a person or persons approaching this subject {or any subject for that matter} rather than the subject itself.

People like Newt of the author who approach a subject with such blatant partisan dishonesty should not be given a platform, but the subject itself, is not off limits for an honest fact based discussion.
You’re creating a logical fallacy by claiming one is the same as the other. They are not the same. Rather than explain or admit a mistake you offer the classic “Pants on Fire” argument that we might hear on an primary school playground. It’s laughable.
I think your decision to stop bothering me is a wise one. Evidently you prefer discussions with people who agree with you, or aren’t as willing and able to defend their position.

bugspot1 said:
i gave up

on what?

CosmosDan said:
on what?

trying to argue – spending 3 hours reading research only to have 1 line, or 3 words taken out of context

bugspot1 said:
trying to argue – spending 3 hours reading research only to have 1 line, or 3 words taken out of context

Right. And then after the research and a presenting a clear argument the response is akin to nu uh!

I think I’ll create an” Is NOT!” ” Is SO! ” argument that I can copy and paste to save time.

CosmosDan said:
Right. And then after the research and a presenting a clear argument the response is akin to nu uh!

I think I’ll create an” Is NOT!” ” Is SO! ” argument that I can copy and paste to save time.

yep
I thought of that after the last time I typed out marxist, nazi, mao, che, communist, socialist dummy

CosmosDan said:
I’m having a hard time understanding how you read that as just an analysis and not fear mongering. Why if it’s just an analysis of a philosophy why do you suppose he dedicated a paragraph to Obama Srs moral failings. Since those have nothing to do with the philosophy I assume it was added to help the overall negative impression. He’s playing on the socialism foundation already laid. about Obama. This observation by Dowd cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning seems right on to me.

The paragraph of Sr.’s moral failings are relevent when you’re discussing someone who’s an inspiration, as the very next sentence says, “An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero.” The article was about, “How Obama Thinks” after all. In regard to socialism, that’s relevant because people believe him to be a socialist. D’Souza says that’s “inadequate” and mentions times Obama has not followed the socialist dogma.

CosmosDan said:

A couple of examplesHe mentions a paper Obama’s father wrote in 1965, picks out a damming quote, and then says; Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House. He admits that Obama’s father had very little contact with him but claims it’s remakable Obama hasn’t publicly mentioned his father’s article? Why the hell would we expect him to? Then he makes a stab at the “liberal media” that must be in league with Obama because there hasn’t been any reporting on this article that obviously {in his contrived association} has influenced Obama’s policies.

Well, if Obama sees his father as an inspiration, why doesn’t he mention him? He wrote a book about him, so you’d think he’d use him in one of his speeches, like he’s used other members of his family before. He talks about being raised by a single mother and how she influenced him. He’s infamously talked about his “typical white person” grandma. If you do a google search for, “Obama talks about his mom” you get hits from alot of “mainstream” news media. Switch it to “dad” and the only outlet that is “mainstream” is Newsweek, and they’re not even talking to him directly about him. Also, how many people were assigned to Sarah Palin’s book? Don’t you think it’s odd that the media hasn’t really done any kind of comparable coverage of his book?

His father inspired him so much he wrote a book about him. This is why his father’s character is fair game. If his father’s character wasn’t what inspired him, I think we should look at his life’s work. Something about his father inspired him to write a book and say that he adopted his dreams. What is it?

CosmosDan said:

I could go into more specifics but the most glaring thing to me was how he makes a point about Obama’s bookWhat then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.builds the case about Obama Sr’s views, assumes as fact that these are Obama’s positions as well, and then finds a total of three quotes from that book that barely support his conclusion, if at all.It’s not thoughtful analysis. It’s biased speculation with using tortured logic to support an agenda.

D’Souza never “assumes as fact” that the anti-colonialism of his father is what he adopted, he builds a case based on his own policy decisions, something you’ve left out of this reply. You didn’t address any of the actual argument laid out, you just acted as though his case was, “Hey, his dad was an anti-colonial so he is too.” That’s not the argument made in the article, it’s an oversimplified strawman.

CosmosDan said:
First D,Souza needs to have some clear and convincing evidence that Obama had any serious relationship with his fathers ideals. As I said, he makes a rather big deal out of the use of “from” in Obama’s book title and then after providing all the negatives about that philosophy he only provides 3 quotes from the book that kinda sorta might possibly indicate Obama valued those ideals. It’s bad reasoning with little evidence using cherry picked quotes to provide a platform for negatives. It’s bears almost no resemblance to a scholastic well reasoned analysis. It’s also a set up for the book he’s got coming out.

The evidence are his policy decisions, something you left out of your critique of the article. The article wasn’t using the book itself to say that Obama has anti-colonial views. The article uses his policy decisions coupled with the fact that he sees his father as an inspirational figure to build the case that he adopted his father’s ideals. His father was an anti-colonialist, and judging his policy decisions and speeches you can see a reflection of anti-colonial views.

CosmosDan said:
They become fear mongering when you state as fact that Obama believes certain things without providing any serious evidence.

How can you say there was no serious evidence? The entire first page of the article analyzes policy and rhetoric used in speeches.

Haimerej said:
Well, if Obama sees his father as an inspiration, why doesn’t he mention him? He wrote a book about him, so you’d think he’d use him in one of his speeches, like he’s used other members of his family before. He talks about being raised by a single mother and how she influenced him. He’s infamously talked about his “typical white person” grandma. If you do a google search for, “Obama talks about his mom” you get hits from alot of “mainstream” news media. Switch it to “dad” and the only outlet that is “mainstream” is Newsweek, and they’re not even talking to him directly about him. Also, how many people were assigned to Sarah Palin’s book? Don’t you think it’s odd that the media hasn’t really done any kind of comparable coverage of his book?

his book was searching for heritage as a black man with white family – he states in the book he did not kno him – did you read the book or only the Kenyan article?

you state this

Haimerej said:
He talks about being raised by a single mother and how she influenced him.

but ask why no talk about a father he did not know?

CosmosDan said:
>He mentioned some things about policy at the beginning of the article that are interesting and I’d like to explore further but IMO an real exploration requires hearing both sides of an argument, not just a clearly and heavily biased one {noting everyone has some bias.}Saying, Oh No Socialism , or , OMG it’s anti colonialism is a generalization that doesn’t serve a useful purpose. It may be intellectually interesting to see bits of specific philosophies in policy but the reality is that philosophies overlap each other and people are very capable of pulling out positive aspects of philosophies and rejecting the negative so the labeling of socialism or anti colonialism don’t really serve a purpose.

If “labeling” doesn’t serve a purpose, then why do we have labels?

I find the response to Gingrich full of irony, myself. Look at that snippet from Dowd again. Where is the substance in these statements-

If it wasn’t so sick it would be funny. It’s worse than a conspiracy theory because this conspiracy consists of a single dead individual. No substance, just opinion

The idea that there’s something illegitimate about anticolonialism on the part of a Kenyan man in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s is stupid. Strawman

This fear-mongering is ugly. D’Souza and Gingrich employ the tactics the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq — cherry-picking, insinuation, half-truths and dishonest reasoning…It’s Newt and D’Souza and their ilk who put America at risk.

None of that addresses substance. It’s simply name calling. Consider your attempt at justifying what she said. You never once addressed the fact that he used Obama’s own policies and rhetoric along with the book to make the argument. You focused on the claims about the book, ignoring the majority of the argument.

Haimerej said:
The idea that there’s something illegitimate about anticolonialism on the part of a Kenyan man in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s is stupid. Strawman

What
the whole article is classic strawman

bugspot1 said:
his book was searching for heritage as a black man with white family – he states in the book he did not kno him – did you read the book or only the Kenyan article? you state this but ask why no talk about a father he did not know?

So you’re saying he’s completely ignorant of his father’s life work? I doubt that.

Again, the article isn’t saying that the book itself is the evidence. The question is simply what did he take from his father’s inspiration? This quote, “You must help in your people’s struggle. Wake up, black man!” in which he imagine’s coming from his father is intriguing. I mean, what “struggle” would his father be referring to? Taking the context of his father’s life work, something that I’m pretty safe in assuming he’s familiar with, it can be reasonably assumed it falls in line with anti-colonial sentiments regarding the oppression Europeans imposed on people of color.

Couple that with the policy decisions and rhetoric he’s used and it’s reasonable to assume he harbors anti-colonial sentiments, whether he espouses them or not.

bugspot1 said:
Whatthe whole article is classic strawman

Oookay….

Well, considering no one said that a Kenyan man in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s having anticolonial sentiments is “illegitimate”, that’s the very definition of a strawman.

Haimerej said:
it can be reasonably assumed it falls in line with anti-colonial sentiments regarding the oppression Europeans imposed on people of color.

or as he states in his book, it can be reasonably assumed it falls in line with being associated as black in our society, not accepted as white

bugspot1 said:
or as he states in his book, it can be reasonably assumed it falls in line with being associated as black in our society, not accepted as white

He was far from oppressed, so what “struggle” is it referring to? Are you saying he wanted to be accepted as white or what?

Haimerej said:
Couple that with the policy decisions

ok i’ll bite

what policy decisions make you reasonably assume he harbors anti-colonial sentiments

bugspot1 said:
ok i’ll bite what policy decisions make you reasonably assume he harbors anti-colonial sentiments

Well, I don’t want to repost the entire first page of the article, so you can check it out yourself. It’s called, “How Obama Thinks” and it’s on Forbes.com.

I will post this one though-

“With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro–not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.”

Why are we funding energy exploration in Brazil but not here? One tenet of anti-colonialism is to bring up poorer countries and bring down the big ones.

Haimerej said:
“With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro–not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.”

problem one – if you go to the wall street journal for the article he is quoting

Haimerej said:
not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.”

is not there – kind of turns your article into an opinion piece (assumption piece) – it also goes onto state This is progress, however slow.

problem 2 – by this logic, Any administration that loans money to a more poor country (lets see-US wealthiest country in the world so that would be….) harbors anti-colonial sentiments
One tenet of anti-colonialism is to bring up poorer countries and bring down the big ones.

Haimerej said:
The paragraph of Sr.’s moral failings are relevent when you’re discussing someone who’s an inspiration, as the very next sentence says, “An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero.”

Is the article about an analysis of Obama’s policies and their similarities to anti colonialism? If that’s the main thrust then commentary on Obama Sr’s personal life is gratuitous. The biggest miss for me is that the article makes an assumption that Obama Sr was an inspiration and then offers almost no real evidence to support it.
If you’re going to make a serious analysis about How Obama thinks based on who inspired him you have to first establish very clearly that Obama was quite inspired by his birth father and embraced his vision of morality and politics.. You cannot do this by using the title of a book and quotes that could nave sundry implications.
I haven’t read the book and I’m guessing you haven’t either. bugspot1 has and tells you his book was searching for heritage as a black man with white family – he states in the book he did not know him
and here is another article that speaks of Obama’s father.
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/22/on-his-own.html I haven’t read it all but I though this was pretty relevant
Obama’s father decided to go to Havard when Obama was a toddler and he never saw his father again.
“There were letters from father to son, and replies, but the younger Obama recalls nothing particularly heartfelt.His grandfather, Stanley, was the most constant male presence in his life.”
You yourself make this observation
Well, if Obama sees his father as an inspiration, why doesn’t he mention him? He wrote a book about him, so you’d think he’d use him in one of his speeches, like he’s used other members of his family before. He talks about being raised by a single mother and how she influenced him
The answer is, his father did not inspire him and was not a role model at all. The book {that you haven’t read} is not about his father. It’s about the struggle of growing up half black and half white without one. Don’t you think if his father had been the great influence the author describes we’d have something much more explicit from Obama about that influence?

His father inspired him so much he wrote a book about him. This is why his father’s character is fair game. If his father’s character wasn’t what inspired him, I think we should look at his life’s work. Something about his father inspired him to write a book and say that he adopted his dreams. What is it?

I’ll point out that you recommended I read the article before assuming anything. You were correct in doing so. You’re assuming assuming Obama wrote a book because he was inspired by his father , because someone in an article said so. You haven’t read the book right? I think it’s apparent now that there’s no serious evidence that Obama was inspired by his father or his father’s philosophy. In fact there’s more evidence that the opposite is true. That being the case the entire foundation of that so called analysis is flawed at best. Why bother mentioning Obama Sr’s personal flaws and quoting his philosophies when you’ve failed in the primary premise, that Obama was inspired and influenced by his father.
I’ll go a step further. My rule of thumb when judging these things is this. If an average guy like me with a little time and an internet connection can discover this serious flaw, and given that I should expect a little more from in the way of research and evidence form an author, I can safely assume the misrepresentation of Obama Sr’s influence was intentional. The mention of Obama Sr’s personal failings and all the rest was planned to serve a political agenda {and sell a book} by shining another dishonest negative light on Obama.
You claim Dowd doesn’t address the substance , but when the primary premise of Obama Sr’s influence fails by so much, there is no substance to the article.

If “labeling” doesn’t serve a purpose, then why do we have labels?

I think this is a good a very relevant question for this discussion. Labels can serve a purpose in communication when applied correctly. They also can be used incorrectly. If someone asks you to go to the store and get some fruit, that’s probably to general and you’ll need a more specific label. In politics, general labels can and are used to create an emotional response away from relevant facts. As I mentioned before, the association of socialism with communism is meant to evoke an emotional negative response rather than intelligently trying to inform the voters of reality. It’s Socialism =communism=evil and unAmerican. The same purpose for this article. His dad was a bad guy with bad ideas and that’s who inspired him was the underlying message, which is based on a falsehood.
You said the comparison of his policies to anti colonialism was never addressed.Since it was never established he was inspired by anti colonialism It doesn’t need to be. Rather than useless speculation about what general philosophies his policies might be like, we have a a much better more efficient tool available. We can analyze the specifics of the policies themselves. Ultimately the discussion boils down to what is good for America as a whole. What is in keeping with our Constitution and morals? What is the best path for security that remains morally acceptable and in line with justice for all? We can and should be discussing those details rationally , armed with facts and just maybe, the idea that people can disagree and still be patriots, Dealing with those specifics we really don’t need the labels of general philosophies other than for intellectual speculation. I appreciate you civil approach and the time invested.

@CosmosDan

After reading the article in Forbes I was amazed at all the conclusions (every single paragraph) that were based on absolutely NO fact
article starts

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history.

because D’Souza says so?

The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

I’m sure they were open minded.

Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama’s rationale, that “our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

wouldn’t that be domestic policy, and support for the constitution

From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize

because D’Souza says so?

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan

again

because of this line
Obama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil

he concludes this
He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective.

hows this
More strange behavior: Obama’s June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.” Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world’s resources?

Makes the case for what point – OBVIOUSLY it could’t be to push for alternative energy, fuels, etc
No STRANGE behavior

bet its a best seller though – thats where the Country is

bugspot1 said:
@CosmosDan

After reading the article in Forbes I was amazed at all the conclusions (every single paragraph) that were based on absolutely NO fact
article starts

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history.

because D’Souza says so?

The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

I’m sure they were open minded.

Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama’s rationale, that “our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

wouldn’t that be domestic policy, and support for the constitution

From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize

because D’Souza says so?

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan

again

because of this line
Obama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil

he concludes this
He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective.

hows this
More strange behavior: Obama’s June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.” Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world’s resources?

Makes the case for what point – OBVIOUSLY it could’t be to push for alternative energy, fuels, etc
No STRANGE behavior

bet its a best seller though – thats where the Country is

Right. That was my impression as well. It’s not sound reasoning. Because of X then that means Y. Well not only does X not necessarily mean Y , you haven’t really established X that well.
As I said before. When it’s that far off I tend to assume it’s intentional.

@CosmosDan

While reading I could only think of an old Abbot and Costello bit 1+1 equals 11

sorry
7*13 = 28
funny – same conclusions

I just finished reading the article about Obama I linked to earlier. It contains quite a bit about his father and others who helped shape him as well. It paints a picture of them not really knowing each other.
“Over the years, Obama was to discover the more complicated truth about the father so often spoken of as larger than life. “My father was a deeply troubled person,” Obama told me. “My father was an alcoholic. He was a womanizer. He did not treat his children well.”
It doesn’t look as if he saw him as a role model. It seems fairly clear that D’Souza ‘s presentation of Obama being inspired by his father is an outright lie. When the foundation of a piece is based on a falsehood there’s no reason to examine other claims made.

There may be some similarities , especially if you use the right spin, between Obama’s policies and anti colonialism, but that is coincidental and not an indication of Obama embracing that philosophy.

as a side note I also thought this assessment of Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright was interesting.

,b.”That anecdote foreshadowed the grandiosity that led to Wright’s fall from grace with Obama during the presidential campaign, when the minister went to the National Press Club in the wake of the release of clips of controversial sermons. At the Washington luncheon, Wright treated the media to a racially charged stemwinder in which he defended some of his most controversial statements. Obama had tried to stand by Wright, initially refusing to repudiate him, but the National Press Club was too much.

The origins of the clash are generational. “Their racial politics are very different,” says Hendricks. “Barack, because of his experience, didn’t have the same perspective, the same level of resentment as so many in Jeremiah’s generation. And so Jeremiah comes from another era, closer to my own, when segregation was still the law of the land. He still carries that, his outrage at those injustices. Barack, of course, is sensitive to that, but he did not experience it.”
This was the impression I got listening to Obama’s speech on racism. Although he understood and had compassion for Wright’s experiences growing up in a more racist America, and he tolerated his more radical views, he did not embrace them. He knew it was time for America to move past that.

bugspot1 said:
problem one – if you go to the wall street journal for the article he is quoting is not there –

Not there?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

bugspot1 said:

kind of turns your article into an opinion piece (assumption piece) – it also goes onto state This is progress, however slow.

This is confusing. I think you’re saying it wasn’t there, but then you quote from it? You deceptively left out this part though, which was right after what you quoted- ” Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.” That reinforced the ideals of anti-colonialism- let the poor countries do things that you are restricting in the richer ones. It also seems like your quote was done facetiously or sarcastically in the article itself.

bugspot1 said:

problem 2 – by this logic, Any administration that loans money to a more poor country (lets see-US wealthiest country in the world so that would be….) harbors anti-colonial sentimentsOne tenet of anti-colonialism is to bring up poorer countries and bring down the big ones.

You seem to miss the point that the administration is financing the country to do things that it’s restricting here. That’s the difference.

CosmosDan said:
Is the article about an analysis of Obama’s policies and their similarities to anti colonialism? If that’s the main thrust then commentary on Obama Sr’s personal life is gratuitous.

You’re disregarding his quotes about his father from the book. If he didn’t see any inspiration in his father, why would he imagine his father motivating him with things like, “My father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry.”? Why would he see his father saying such things to him if he knew nothing of the man other than him being a deadbeat dad? Something about the man was inspirational to his son. If it wasn’t his morality, then what was it?

CosmosDan said:

The biggest miss for me is that the article makes an assumption that Obama Sr was an inspiration and then offers almost no real evidence to support it.If you’re going to make a serious analysis about How Obama thinks based on who inspired him you have to first establish very clearly that Obama was quite inspired by his birth father and embraced his vision of morality and politics.. You cannot do this by using the title of a book and quotes that could nave sundry implications.I haven’t read the book and I’m guessing you haven’t either. bugspot1 has and tells you his book was searching for heritage as a black man with white family – he states in the book he did not know himand here is another article that speaks of Obama’s father.http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/22/on-his-own.html I haven’t read it all but I though this was pretty relevantObama’s father decided to go to Havard when Obama was a toddler and he never saw his father again.“There were letters from father to son, and replies, but the younger Obama recalls nothing particularly heartfelt.His grandfather, Stanley, was the most constant male presence in his life.”You yourself make this observationWell, if Obama sees his father as an inspiration, why doesn’t he mention him? He wrote a book about him, so you’d think he’d use him in one of his speeches, like he’s used other members of his family before. He talks about being raised by a single mother and how she influenced himThe answer is, his father did not inspire him and was not a role model at all. The book {that you haven’t read} is not about his father. It’s about the struggle of growing up half black and half white without one. Don’t you think if his father had been the great influence the author describes we’d have something much more explicit from Obama about that influence? I’ll point out that you recommended I read the article before assuming anything. You were correct in doing so. You’re assuming assuming Obama wrote a book because he was inspired by his father , because someone in an article said so. You haven’t read the book right? I think it’s apparent now that there’s no serious evidence that Obama was inspired by his father or his father’s philosophy. In fact there’s more evidence that the opposite is true. That being the case the entire foundation of that so called analysis is flawed at best. Why bother mentioning Obama Sr’s personal flaws and quoting his philosophies when you’ve failed in the primary premise, that Obama was inspired and influenced by his father.

You’re right, I haven’t read the book. However, the case for him being an anti-colonial isn’t based solely upon the book. His father was an inspiration, as he said so himself. Citing bugspot as an expert falls flat with me as he has shown a lack of expertise in analyzing the WSJ article, no offense bugspot. I have seen reviews done by people I respect that have stated that the book is also about how he sees his father. I mean, the culmination of the book is him going to his father’s grave. The book is called, “Dreams from My Father.” Deny all you like, but from is a word that has a specific meaning; any lawyer will tell you, words have meaning.

CosmosDan said:
I’ll go a step further. My rule of thumb when judging these things is this. If an average guy like me with a little time and an internet connection can discover this serious flaw, and given that I should expect a little more from in the way of research and evidence form an author, I can safely assume the misrepresentation of Obama Sr’s influence was intentional.

You’ve shown no “serious flaw” though. You think his father’s morality is just a jab, but it’s relevant when you consider that Obama says he was inspirational. If you call someone an inspiration, you must have been inspired by something. Citing the man’s moral failings is a way to mark that off the checklist of what inspired him. Obviously, he didn’t see those as inspiring as his own family attests to. Then what exactly inspired the man?

CosmosDan said:

The mention of Obama Sr’s personal failings and all the rest was planned to serve a political agenda {and sell a book} by shining another dishonest negative light on Obama.You claim Dowd doesn’t address the substance , but when the primary premise of Obama Sr’s influence fails by so much, there is no substance to the article. I think this is a good a very relevant question for this discussion. Labels can serve a purpose in communication when applied correctly. They also can be used incorrectly. If someone asks you to go to the store and get some fruit, that’s probably to general and you’ll need a more specific label. In politics, general labels can and are used to create an emotional response away from relevant facts. As I mentioned before, the association of socialism with communism is meant to evoke an emotional negative response rather than intelligently trying to inform the voters of reality. It’s Socialism =communism=evil and unAmerican.

It will only evoke a negative response in people who believe in free market capitalism. I don’t think you have to include communism with socialism for many people to have a negative response. It’s part of the American heritage, whether you like it or not, that we are a people who pride ourselves on having a system of laws designed to limit the government and it’s impact on our lives. Personally, I’m a libertarian. There are many, many, many laws on the books that I would like to see go, not because I’m an anarchist, but because I see many laws that have no moral value and are merely tools the government uses to increase their revenue stream.

CosmosDan said:

The same purpose for this article. His dad was a bad guy with bad ideas and that’s who inspired him was the underlying message, which is based on a falsehood.You said the comparison of his policies to anti colonialism was never addressed.Since it was never established he was inspired by anti colonialism It doesn’t need to be.

That’s ridiculous. The argument itself is based upon the policy decisions. You’re basically saying you don’t have to address the actual argument because the argument wasn’t made. That’s absurd. The policy decisions are the central part of the argument.

CosmosDan said:

Rather than useless speculation about what general philosophies his policies might be like, we have a a much better more efficient tool available. We can analyze the specifics of the policies themselves. Ultimately the discussion boils down to what is good for America as a whole. What is in keeping with our Constitution and morals? What is the best path for security that remains morally acceptable and in line with justice for all? We can and should be discussing those details rationally , armed with facts and just maybe, the idea that people can disagree and still be patriots, Dealing with those specifics we really don’t need the labels of general philosophies other than for intellectual speculation. I appreciate you civil approach and the time invested.

I agree we can talk about the policies themselves. This entire article is an attempt to understand why he comes to those decisions. What do those decisions reflect in him?

I know this wasn’t meant for me, but since Dan didn’t really clarify the points, I’ll take it upon myself-

bugspot1 said:
@CosmosDan After reading the article in Forbes I was amazed at all the conclusions (every single paragraph) that were based on absolutely NO factarticle starts Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. because D’Souza says so?

That’s a fair assessment. No president in recent history has talked so negatively about “the rich” than this president. Do you think it’s merely a coincidence that we’re currently in one of the longest recovery’s from a recession in our history? Why do you think that is? Do you know what an S-corp is? It’s a small business in which the taxes are filed on the personal income taxes of the owner. These people will reflect an income greater than $250k on their returns and will fall under “the rich.” They are going to get hammered when he let’s the Bush Tax Cuts expire for them. The business community as a whole is hesitant to expand, which is why they’re sitting on so much capital (trillions of $ worth) and not hiring. Almost all of his major policy goals will make the cost of doing business higher. Obamacare puts a heavier burden on smaller businesses that before didn’t have to cover their employees. The expiring Tax Cuts will hammer small businesses. If Cap & Trade passes everything will cost more. These aren’t simply “opinions,” they are objective facts. Unemployment remains high because most business that are in a situation in which they could grow, won’t make that choice due to the uncertainty of what it will cost them. Only a foolish businessman would hire a bunch of new employees or open a new store in a different place without first knowing how much it will cost to do so. Even JFK knew the consequences of raising taxes in a recession and the benefits of lowering taxes. There’s a video of him on Youtube in which he explains how lowering taxes actually does increase revenues to the government, which history has born out to be true.

bugspot1 said:
The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad. I’m sure they were open minded.

That’s of course hyperbolic, but it summarizes his expansion of government power here and his lack of any actual diplomatic victories abroad. He’s done a nice job of pissing off our allies though.

bugspot1 said:
Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama’s rationale, that “our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero. wouldn’t that be domestic policy, and support for the constitution

If you think his support of the Cordoba House has nothing to do with how the Islamic world will view us, then you’re mistaken. It has nothing to do with “our commitment to religious freedom.” There is nothing in the tenets of Islam that states that a community center/mosque has to be built anywhere. Even many imams from other countries recognize that it’s insensitive to build there. Also, you left off the next two things he referred to- the Lockerbie bomber and his switching NASA’s mission from space exploration to making Muslims “feel good” about their contributions to math and science.

bugspot1 said:
From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize because D’Souza says so? Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan again

That’s actually a pretty good description of anti-colonialism as it’s held today. If Obama has anti-colonial views, then these are the views he has. This would explain why he’s constantly talking about “the rich” as a negative. This is why he refers to “massive profits” as a negative. This is why he refers to our consumption as a negative. You see, I have a brother who believes this stuff. That’s a very succinct way of laying out the philosophy and I see no error in it.

bugspot1 said:
because of this lineObama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil he concludes thisHe decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective.

No, he doesn’t conclude that because of that line. He concludes that based on the entirety of the argument. It’s based upon the fact that Obama says his father was an inspiration. It’s based upon the policy decisions he’s made and their real world impacts.

bugspot1 said:
hows thisMore strange behavior: Obama’s June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.” Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world’s resources? Makes the case for what point – OBVIOUSLY it could’t be to push for alternative energy, fuels, etcNo STRANGE behavior bet its a best seller though – thats where the Country is

I bolded the point that he was making. His response to the oil spill was odd by all accounts. I believe he did as Rahm infamously said and didn’t, “let a crisis go to waste.” Instead of focusing on cleaning up the spill, he tried to push his ideology. Is it appropriate to push for that in the midst of a disaster? Our consumption of oil as a percentage of total world consumption has ZERO to do with cleaning up an oil spill.

CosmosDan said:
I just finished reading the article about Obama I linked to earlier. It contains quite a bit about his father and others who helped shape him as well. It paints a picture of them not really knowing each other.“Over the years, Obama was to discover the more complicated truth about the father so often spoken of as larger than life. “My father was a deeply troubled person,” Obama told me. “My father was an alcoholic. He was a womanizer. He did not treat his children well.”It doesn’t look as if he saw him as a role model. It seems fairly clear that D’Souza ’s presentation of Obama being inspired by his father is an outright lie.

Quoting Barack Obama- “My father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry”

The man said he was inspired by his father. Obviously, it wasn’t by his morality. What was it then?

CosmosDan said:

When the foundation of a piece is based on a falsehood there’s no reason to examine other claims made.

Right. It’s false as long as we ignore the fact that the man said his father inspired him. It seems you’re really jumping through hoops in order to not have to address the actual meat of the argument- his policies.

CosmosDan said:
There may be some similarities , especially if you use the right spin, between Obama’s policies and anti colonialism, but that is coincidental and not an indication of Obama embracing that philosophy. as a side note I also thought this assessment of Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright was interesting. ,b.”That anecdote foreshadowed the grandiosity that led to Wright’s fall from grace with Obama during the presidential campaign, when the minister went to the National Press Club in the wake of the release of clips of controversial sermons. At the Washington luncheon, Wright treated the media to a racially charged stemwinder in which he defended some of his most controversial statements. Obama had tried to stand by Wright, initially refusing to repudiate him, but the National Press Club was too much. The origins of the clash are generational. “Their racial politics are very different,” says Hendricks. “Barack, because of his experience, didn’t have the same perspective, the same level of resentment as so many in Jeremiah’s generation. And so Jeremiah comes from another era, closer to my own, when segregation was still the law of the land. He still carries that, his outrage at those injustices. Barack, of course, is sensitive to that, but he did not experience it.”This was the impression I got listening to Obama’s speech on racism. Although he understood and had compassion for Wright’s experiences growing up in a more racist America, and he tolerated his more radical views, he did not embrace them. He knew it was time for America to move past that.

I wonder why you would attend the church of a pastor who so obviously has trouble with forgiveness? Sure, he grew up in that environment, as did my grandparents. But my grandmother never hesitated in scolding my grandfather if he said, “nigger.” She tried to explain why he used that word, but she never acted as though he was right in doing so. She is a woman of faith and her faith led her to that conviction. She’s a long way away from a “clergyman” yet she was able to overcome her bigotries and condemn those in others. Jeremiah Wright should be held to an even higher standard, being a supposed, “reverend.”

Furthermore, the above “explanation” for Obama going to his church for 20 years falls flat. There is NO EXCUSE to “tolerate” hate like that coming from the pulpit. Do you think pastors/priests/reverends should be held to higher standards? I can understand tolerating a brother in Christ who has failings, but there is no excuse to tolerate the failings themselves. A church leader is in a unique situation. For example, it’s appropriate to allow a brother or sister who has alcohol problems to come to church. It would be another thing completely to allow that brother or sister to get drunk there or give a message in Sunday school while under the influence. Yet Wright was, “under the influence” everytime he got on stage and preached a race specific message. Colossians 3:11 specifically denounces the separation by race or culture in the Church because, “Christ is all and in all.” A “reverend” who’s quick to condemn white people for nothing more than their skin color (as he did with Hillary) is not something that anyone should ever tolerate.

Haimerej said:
You’re disregarding his quotes about his father from the book. If he didn’t see any inspiration in his father, why would he imagine his father motivating him with things like, “My father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry.”? Why would he see his father saying such things to him if he knew nothing of the man other than him being a deadbeat dad? Something about the man was inspirational to his son. If it wasn’t his morality, then what was it?

I’m not disregarding them. I’m saying they are far to inconclusive to draw the conclusion of inspiraion. I’ll repeat, if Obama Sr was indeed such a great influence and inspiration described in that article to explain “How Obama Thinks” I’d expect something in a 450 page book to say so a little more explicitly than those few quotes that could have a number of meanings. There is no way to reasonably draw such a conclusion from those quotes.If there’s any evidence of inspiration in other writings he didn’t provide it. Putting those quotes in the context of the details of Obama’s life and his own words about his father. , it seems very clear that it isn’t true.
Take that quote you mention; taken on it’s own it doesn’t tell us much.There’s no way to make the leap all the way to “His father was a great personal inspiration” Taken with the context of the other information I’ve provided it fits with the idea of Obama as a young man of mixed race trying to figure out his identity.My guess is he didn’t know his father so he provided the voice of inspiration he longed for from a father. Not that my guess is superior, but you surely don’t base an analysis on some shaky guess work. That’s his foundational premise and he utterly fails to establish it. In fact the evidence I’ve provided indicates the opposite is true.

You’re right, I haven’t read the book. However, the case for him being an anti-colonial isn’t based solely upon the book. His father was an inspiration, as he said so himself.

No sir, he never said so. Forcing that quote to fit the outcome you prefer is faulty reasoning. Ignoring all the evidence to the contrary is as well.

Citing bugspot as an expert falls flat with me as he has shown a lack of expertise in analyzing the WSJ article, no offense bugspot

He was not cited as an expert but merely as someone who has read the book , since neither of us had.He’s not offering analysis. He says Obama frankly states he never knew his father and that fits with everything else I’ve read and provided.

. I have seen reviews done by people I respect that have stated that the book is also about how he sees his father

and I’ll bet none of those reviews make the claim his father’s morals and
political views were a great inspiration. I just read 8 to 10 reviews and none of them make that claim. They all describe the book as a young man of mixed blood, abandoned by his father and trying to find his identity as a black man in America. They all basically say he never knew his father and how that gap in his life drove him.
.

I mean, the culmination of the book is him going to his father’s grave. The book is called, “Dreams from My Father.” Deny all you like, but from is a word that has a specific meaning; any lawyer will tell you, words have meaning.

Now you are really reaching, determined to believe what you prefer, rather than the evidence in front of you. It’s a novel not a legal document. Yes, he travels to Africa years after his father dies to get some sense of that part of his connection. He has half brothers and sisters there. He visits his fathers grave. Not one thing about that indicates he was inspired by and embraced his fathers political views. Nothing Nada. Zilch!
Admittedly I approached the article with skepticism and you evidently believed it was accurate. Okay. I suppose you didn’t have reason to doubt, but now that it’s has been questioned and the evidence strongly indicates D’Souza intentionally distorted the truth about Obama’s inspiration , you still prefer to believe it? That’s your call.

I hope you understood my point about looking at the specifics of policies rather than trying to label them with some philosophical political view. As a democracy we get to borrow the best from any philosophy we want and reject the bad. The basic judgment call is what’s best for America and American’s as a whole, and then you get into the details of specific issues.

Haimerej said:
I wonder why you would attend the church of a pastor who so obviously has trouble with forgiveness? Sure, he grew up in that environment, as did my grandparents. But my grandmother never hesitated in scolding my grandfather if he said, “nigger.” She tried to explain why he used that word, but she never acted as though he was right in doing so. She is a woman of faith and her faith led her to that conviction. She’s a long way away from a “clergyman” yet she was able to overcome her bigotries and condemn those in others. Jeremiah Wright should be held to an even higher standard, being a supposed, “reverend.”

I only posted that as possibly something that might be interesting. I didn’t intend to start a different lengthy discussion. Christians and even Christian clergy vary because they are human and have different human experiences. Your grandmother didn’t leave your grandfather for his racism did she? I listened to one of Wrights Sermons that one of his infamous quotes came from. 95 to 98% of it was a wonderful message about personal responsibility, rising above adversity, love, courage , justice, forgiveness. That’s kinda how I see him as a man although I really don’t know him. I think having grown up in a very different , much more hateful racist America, he has managed to do much more good than harm with his life even with his flaws.

Furthermore, the above “explanation” for Obama going to his church for 20 years falls flat. There is NO EXCUSE to “tolerate” hate like that coming from the pulpit.

It isn’t intended as hate. Those words we heard from a brief clip were only one small part of the message. It’s like a preacher talking about Christian love and then warning us that all in the sin in this country and the sex and porn are going to incur God’s wrath. Different churches have different approaches. The one I went to was pretty clam but I used to run sound at one where they danced and ran and spoke in tongues and fell on the floor.

Do you think pastors/priests/reverends should be held to higher standards? I can understand tolerating a brother in Christ who has failings, but there is no excuse to tolerate the failings themselves. A church leader is in a unique situation. For example, it’s appropriate to allow a brother or sister who has alcohol problems to come to church. It would be another thing completely to allow that brother or sister to get drunk there or give a message in Sunday school while under the influence. Yet Wright was, “under the influence” everytime he got on stage and preached a race specific message. Colossians 3:11 specifically denounces the separation by race or culture in the Church because, “Christ is all and in all.” A “reverend” who’s quick to condemn white people for nothing more than their skin color (as he did with Hillary) is not something that anyone should ever tolerate.

churches and preaching styles vary. I understand what you’re saying but understand that Wright came from a time when white churches preached Christian love but never allowed black people in the building. We’re not living the message perfectly even now. Still working on it. He did not condemn Hillary because of skin color. He said, rather loudly, that she did not have the perspective because she’d never been black,had taxis whiz by, or been pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood, or called a nigger. It wasn’t a condemnation but a recognition of a fact. I understand how Wright sounds to some people but he came from a different era and I haven’t walked in those shoes so I cut him some slack. I don’t believe his sermons were as hate filled as people were led to believe by those selected clips because they don’t understand that kind of predominantly black church.

CosmosDan said:
I’m not disregarding them. I’m saying they are far to inconclusive to draw the conclusion of inspiraion. I’ll repeat, if Obama Sr was indeed such a great influence and inspiration described in that article to explain “How Obama Thinks” I’d expect something in a 450 page book to say so a little more explicitly than those few quotes that could have a number of meanings. There is no way to reasonably draw such a conclusion from those quotes.If there’s any evidence of inspiration in other writings he didn’t provide it. Putting those quotes in the context of the details of Obama’s life and his own words about his father. , it seems very clear that it isn’t true.Take that quote you mention; taken on it’s own it doesn’t tell us much.There’s no way to make the leap all the way to “His father was a great personal inspiration” Taken with the context of the other information I’ve provided it fits with the idea of Obama as a young man of mixed race trying to figure out his identity.My guess is he didn’t know his father so he provided the voice of inspiration he longed for from a father. Not that my guess is superior, but you surely don’t base an analysis on some shaky guess work. That’s his foundational premise and he utterly fails to establish it. In fact the evidence I’ve provided indicates the opposite is true. No sir, he never said so. Forcing that quote to fit the outcome you prefer is faulty reasoning. Ignoring all the evidence to the contrary is as well.

I’m not forcing the quote to mean anything. As I’ve said several times, he did say his father inspired. So WHAT inspired him about his father? That’s a question.

What evidence to the contrary? You’re citing him talking negatively about his father’s moral failings. That wasn’t in question, in fact I’ve stated the same. That still doesn’t address the fact that he said his father inspired him or in what way he was an inspiration.

You still haven’t addressed any of the policy decisions he uses to build the case.

CosmosDan said:
He was not cited as an expert but merely as someone who has read the book , since neither of us had.He’s not offering analysis. He says Obama frankly states he never knew his father and that fits with everything else I’ve read and provided. and I’ll bet none of those reviews make the claim his father’s morals andpolitical views were a great inspiration. I just read 8 to 10 reviews and none of them make that claim. They all describe the book as a young man of mixed blood, abandoned by his father and trying to find his identity as a black man in America. They all basically say he never knew his father and how that gap in his life drove him..

He didn’t have to know his father personally to be inspired by the man’s work. I know a few people who had father’s who abandoned them. Not one would EVER say that their deadbeat dad was in any way “inspirational” to them. He obviously knew of his father’s work. Is it unreasonable to think that he thought his father was doing something important? Why else would he care to seek him out the way he did?

CosmosDan said:
Now you are really reaching, determined to believe what you prefer, rather than the evidence in front of you. It’s a novel not a legal document. Yes, he travels to Africa years after his father dies to get some sense of that part of his connection. He has half brothers and sisters there. He visits his fathers grave. Not one thing about that indicates he was inspired by and embraced his fathers political views. Nothing Nada. Zilch!

Nothing there is supposed to indicate he was inspired by and embraced his father’s views by itself, it’s part of the broader context of the argument. The fact that he sees inspiration in his father, obviously not from his moral standings, coupled with what he’s actually done is what indicates the embracing of the views.

CosmosDan said:
Admittedly I approached the article with skepticism and you evidently believed it was accurate. Okay. I suppose you didn’t have reason to doubt, but now that it’s has been questioned and the evidence strongly indicates D’Souza intentionally distorted the truth about Obama’s inspiration , you still prefer to believe it? That’s your call.

I believed it to be accurate due to my familiarity with the political philosophy. After reading the article (which I did before it became national news) I thought it made a good argument. Simple as that. Are you even familiar with the ideology itself or are you being a reactionary due to it “sounding” bad?

Nothing you’ve shown shows that D’Souza distorted the truth about Obama’s inspiration. D’Souza didn’t say he was inspired by the man’s morality, which is the only “evidence” you’ve given that “strongly” says anything about what did or did not inspire him.

CosmosDan said:
I hope you understood my point about looking at the specifics of policies rather than trying to label them with some philosophical political view. As a democracy we get to borrow the best from any philosophy we want and reject the bad. The basic judgment call is what’s best for America and American’s as a whole, and then you get into the details of specific issues.

I do understand your point. I hope you familiarize yourself with the ideology we’re discussing and then take a look at the decisions he’s made.

Oh, and saying he never said the man inspired him is a flat out lie. I’ve quoted it to you several times. The question is, in what way was he inspired. You keep thinking that because I said the man was inspired by his father, that I’m saying that means his father inspired him to be an anti-colonial. That’s not what I’ve said. However, I think when you couple his rhetoric with his actions, it does paint the picture of him being anti-colonial.

I can’t believe you’re attempting to defend what he said about Hillary. He basically projected his own bigotries on the woman and you say he was merely saying she didn’t have perspective. No, he said she was freaking out because she was white. He claimed she thought she was entitled to win because she was white.

Your whitewashing Wright’s statements makes me less inclined to think you a reasonable person.

I’m also not referring to his “God damn America” rant either. Christian’s aren’t called to have allegiance to nations, theirs is with God.

There are many more rants of his that are much worse than that. Have a good weekend.

Haimerej said:
I’m not forcing the quote to mean anything. As I’ve said several times, he did say his father inspired. So WHAT inspired him about his father? That’s a question.

1. which means , even if the quote means what you think it means , it’s incredibly inconclusive. You can’t be this assertive and draw conclusions based on something so vague,
What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father. He doesn’t ask , is it possible. He delvers it as fact with no solid evidence. That’s not honest analysis.
2, Neither that quote or the title prove or even strongly indicate being inspired by his Dad. Its wild speculation at best, and IMO designed to support a predetermined conclusion. All the reviews and the other article I linked to and Obama’s own quotes indicate he really didn’t know his father, spent almost no time with him,nor did he hold him in high regard. He describes him as a troubled person with serious flaws and recalls nothing heartfelt in the letters they exchanged. You yourself admitted he doesn’t mention him, doesn’t mention his work in any way associated with pride.Doesn’t all of that very strongly indicate he was not inspired by his Dad?
The quote and the title can be easily explained to fit with the other evidence by understanding what the reviews say over and over. A young black ,am. raised in a white family after be abandoned by his father. He longs to to not only have a father’s love and approval but an understanding of race as well. The title and the quote both refer to that longing, not meant to be translated literally but more metaphorically. So on the one hadn we have quite a bit of evidence to indicate Obama was not inspired by his father including a very conspicuous lack of mention , and on the other we have a few non specific quotes which are more likely to be metaphorical when read within the context of other evidence.

You still haven’t addressed any of the policy decisions he uses to build the case.

And I won’t until I see some evidence of the primary basis for that analysis. We’re not working backwards. He must establish , with evidence the foundation of his premise and conclusion of “How Obama Thinks” and its a big fail in that regard.

He didn’t have to know his father personally to be inspired by the man’s work. I know a few people who had father’s who abandoned them. Not one would EVER say that their deadbeat dad was in any way “inspirational” to them.

which seems to support the more metaphorical interpretation doesn’t it? I met my step son when he was three, and had been abandoned by his father who lived fairly close by, He always longed to at least know his biological father who was also a deadbeat. It’s just something that can happen to a person with one absentee parent. For Obama there was the added racial issue. His father was his missing connection to his being black in America.

He obviously knew of his father’s work. Is it unreasonable to think that he thought his father was doing something important?

I wouldn’t say obvious since he never seemed to talk about it at all,nut Obama’s a smart guy and my guess is he was. No it isn’t unreasonable to say that, but it’s a total guess completely lacking evidence. You don’t honestly write such an assertive article based on a complete guess, but DSouza wrote the article anyway, which is why I seriously question his honesty and sincerity
Is it unreasonable to guess that Obama was bitter about being abandoned and was never really interested in his fathers work because he realized he was a bad person? Is it unreasonable to assume he decided to form his own political philosophy? But I wouldn’t write a conclusive article based on my guess.

Why else would he care to seek him out the way he did?

um he never did. but geez man. You’re a smart reasonable person. Why would any abandoned boy want to find out something about his father? To put some emotions to rest and move on. That’s what my step son did.
To correct an earlier post. Obama did see his father very briefly when he came to Hawaii for a few weeks when Obama was 10. There was little but emotional distance between them. He didn’t go to Africa until years after his father had died.

Nothing there is supposed to indicate he was inspired by and embraced his father’s views by itself, it’s part of the broader context of the argument. The fact that he sees inspiration in his father, obviously not from his moral standings, coupled with what he’s actually done is what indicates the embracing of the views.

I believed it to be accurate due to my familiarity with the political philosophy. After reading the article (which I did before it became national news) I thought it made a good argument. Simple as that. Are you even familiar with the ideology itself or are you being a reactionary due to it “sounding” bad?

Here’s my guess. Being somewhat familiar with anti colonialism you read the article and saw some similarities, so with that in mind you accepted the rest as true. As I said before, it’s not hard to find some similarities in between specifics and a general philosophy, but it doesn’t indicate Obama embracing the philosophy in it’s entirety.
I’m not familiar with the ideology. The article had an air of intentional negativity in it’s reasoning IMO. When he failed to provide serious evidence for his primary assertion, I had no reason to give the analysis much credibility. Starting with a dishonest premise, why should I trust his take on Obama’s policies.

Nothing you’ve shown shows that D’Souza distorted the truth about Obama’s inspiration. D’Souza didn’t say he was inspired by the man’s morality, which is the only “evidence” you’ve given that “strongly” says anything about what did or did not inspire him.

That’s not really accurate. There’s the evidence that Obama had almost no contact with his father. When exactly was he inspired? There were letters written which Obama says he remembers nothing heartfelt. There’s the fact that he, if so inspired, never gives any explicit statement indicating that’s true. He never clearly names his father as an inspiration for anything. He never even mentions being the least bit impressed by his work , writing, or political philosophy. That’s an amazing conspicuous absence for such a strong conclusion. The only sketchy evidence Dsauza offers are vague suggestions that when taken in the context of the other information we have, , such as every book review and the lengthy article I linked to, suggest another more likely meaning.
Furthermore, when someone makes a strong assertion of something as fact it is up to them to provide sufficient credible evidence for that assertion. He has the burden of proof , or to at least provide enough evidence that it is more likely than not. He fails. The evidence indicates it’s more likely that Obama Sr was not an inspiration.

I would consider it an honest article if he noted similarities in Obama’s policies to anti colonialism and just posed a question about his father’s work maybe having an influence. If he acknowledged that there’s very little direct evidence to indicate Obama being inspired by his father but he found the similarities in political philosophy compelling, I’d at least give him credit for an honest opinion. When somebody is that assertive about presenting something as fact , with no serious evidence it’s the kind of intentional political dishonesty I’ve seen over and over.

I do understand your point. I hope you familiarize yourself with the ideology we’re discussing and then take a look at the decisions he’s made.

I’m afraid I won’t do that. It’s to time consuming and I have other things to research. I wouldn’t trust DSouza’s analysis at this point but It wouldn’t surprise or alarm me to find some similarities between Obama’s policies and socialism and/or anti-colonialism. As I said before, we need to look at the principles and specifics of the policies and judge them by whether they are good or bad for the country , not what philosophic label they fall under. That may serve intellectual curiosity but it’s not very practical.

D’Souza is a reactionary who penned a sleazy and deceitful hit job on the President. Gingrich’s embracing of this “poppycock” is somewhat surprising, but for Glenn Beck, it’s just another day on the job.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/beck-offered-support-for-dsouzas-lies.html

Haimerej said:
Oh, and saying he never said the man inspired him is a flat out lie. I’ve quoted it to you several times. The question is, in what way was he inspired. You keep thinking that because I said the man was inspired by his father, that I’m saying that means his father inspired him to be an anti-colonial. That’s not what I’ve said. However, I think when you couple his rhetoric with his actions, it does paint the picture of him being anti-colonial.

I apologize for not being clear about this and misunderstanding what you were pointing to. You are technically correct, he does use the word Inspiring and you are also right that it’s legitimate to pose the question, Inspired how, or by what? I see it only as metaphor and was being a little dense. All I can say is “DUH” on my part.
That said; I think you can see that the sentence could be either literal or metaphor. Is it really his father Obama Sr. and maybe his work, or is it his own inner creation of a absent father he didn’t know, and longed for. It is far to ambiguous for Dsauza to make such a string assertion, don’t you think? I read some excerpts from Dreams From my Father last night hoping I could find the quote in larger context. I think it’s also safe to say that if there was anything more explicit showing Obama was very familiar with his father’s work, or had praised it in some way Dsauza would have put it in his article. Is it still possible. I suppose. But Dsauza doesn’t just pose a question “I wonder if this could be” He takes this flimsy evidence and makes very assertive statements like,
But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism.
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. and
It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America
So while the evidence merely suggests a possibility, D’Sauza presents it as fact in the exaggerated negative terms. IMO that’s dishonest . It’s the same as when Beck mentions socialism and holds up a hammer and sickle. It’s not meant to inform or pose and honest , it’s meant to inflame emotions by bearing false witness with intentional distortion.
In this democracy we can better spend our time with honest exchanges of information and careful examination of the benefits and drawbacks of policy specifics. Conservatives and liberals and moderates can have very different views but a common love of country and desire to move us forward and really solve problems. That’s what our politicians in DC ought to be doing. Real communication to find solutions , even compromises, rather than partisan political games.
It’s fine to pose a realistic question, but exaggerated inflammatory ones only distract us from the real work. Hey, Obama’s father was an alcoholic and he’s been known to drink. Should we conclude he’s an alcoholic as well. The leap is just too much and intentionally negative and distorted.

I really appreciate your time and input and the civil manner of our discussion. I always learn something when I’m forced to do some research.

GlennBeckReview said:
Haimerej

Well there ya go. Beck thinks he’s right on. Haimerej I respect your honest approach and repeat, there’s nothing wrong with asking a reasonable question, but I hope you can also see the larger picture of the exaggerated negative picture they are trying to create and the dishonesty in that approach. Look at the title of DSauza’s upcoming book. “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” Is “rage” a somewhat inflammatory word about someone noted for his cool demeanor under pressure. Isn’t it suggestive of the angry black man out to get the white controlled establishment? Let’s stop being distracted by that kind of dishonest rhetoric and get down to real discussions about the specifics of policy.

Haimerej said:
It seems you’re really jumping through hoops in order to not have to address the actual meat of the argument- his policies.

To clarify this again. If he fails to establish the foundational premise there’s no reason or practical need to consider his policy analysis against Obama Sr’s words. . Because I find his foundational premise to be approached in a dishonest exaggerated manner I can’t trust his policy analysis to be less so.
I’d rather examine policy in a more honest and practical approach.

Haimerej said:
I can’t believe you’re attempting to defend what he said about Hillary. He basically projected his own bigotries on the woman and you say he was merely saying she didn’t have perspective. No, he said she was freaking out because she was white. He claimed she thought she was entitled to win because she was white.

Your whitewashing Wright’s statements makes me less inclined to think you a reasonable person.

I went back and listened to the clip to refresh my memory. I did that again this morning. I don’t see what you’re claiming. Is it possible we’re talking about two different clips?
IN the one I watch he talks about America being run by rich white people and how Obama doesn’t fit the mold. Hillary fits the mold. Hillary has never had a can whiz by her because of the color of her skin. Hillary has never been pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood. Hilliary has never been called a nigger.
At no time does he accuse Hillary of feeling entitled to win.
They may be another clip I missed. Here’s an artcle discussing him and perspective
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-sermon_29mar29,0,1943334,full.story

, the sermon seeks to admonish members who may vote for Hillary Clinton because they think a black candidate can’t win. Wright likened their doubt to the doubt of Jesus’ disciples who did not believe he could feed a crowd with five loaves and two fishes.Wright’s recent comment that Hillary Clinton would never know what it feels like to be called the N-word also touched nerves. But Wright had his reasons for using that term, said Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a Wright protege
People need to understand how profoundly painful that word is,” he said. “It speaks to an experience. He came from a different time. Because of the time he came from, he’s not going to just flippantly go along to get along in terms of how that word has hurt him in the past.”
I’m not whitewashing anything.
I’ve done a bit of study about Black Liberation Theology back then and some recently when James Cone came up. It may be hard for us to understand depending on our backgrounds but Wright grew up in a much more hateful racist America. That doesn’t mean I approve of what he says, but I understand and am a bit more tolerant.
When I was in high school in the late 60s my sister married a black man. Suddenly I saw a hateful racist side to people in my family whom I had loved and respected. My dear sweet grandmother wouldn’t let him in the house because of what the neighbors might think. I didn’t stop loving them because of this. I was just shocked and mystified about the animosity over skin color. Try to imagine being told you’re to dirty to drink from the same fountain, use the same bathroom, eat at the same restaurant, because of your skin color. Imagine a lifetime of being treated as something less than a person , inferior and less deserving, and being expected to be grateful when treated with basic decency, because it’s implied you really don’t deserve it. This all happened not that long ago, within the living memory of many people. I find it very unempathetic when people react to black anger with self righteous condemnation and cries of racism. They’ve experienced about 1/1000th of what some of our black citizens have experienced and defend their right to judge.
Racism is wrong from anyone, but we can address the issues with a little more patience and less condemnation.

CosmosDan said:
To clarify this again. If he fails to establish the foundational premise there’s no reason or practical need to consider his policy analysis against Obama Sr’s words. . Because I find his foundational premise to be approached in a dishonest exaggerated manner I can’t trust his policy analysis to be less so.I’d rather examine policy in a more honest and practical approach.

But the policy analysis is the meat of the argument as to his views. Without the policy decisions, there would be no need to attach his views to his father’s. Why would he follow these policies? What could have, inspired him to do that?

CosmosDan said:
I think you can see that the sentence could be either literal or metaphor. Is it really his father Obama Sr. and maybe his work, or is it his own inner creation of a absent father he didn’t know, and longed for. It is far to ambiguous for Dsauza to make such a string assertion, don’t you think? I read some excerpts from Dreams From my Father last night hoping I could find the quote in larger context. I think it’s also safe to say that if there was anything more explicit showing Obama was very familiar with his father’s work, or had praised it in some way Dsauza would have put it in his article. Is it still possible. I suppose. But Dsauza doesn’t just pose a question “I wonder if this could be” He takes this flimsy evidence and makes very assertive statements like,But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. andIt may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America

He doesn’t say those things based merely on that sentence, though. You’re trying to say that D’Souza is saying, “1=2″ but he’s saying, “1+1= 2.” That “+1″ is the policies and rhetoric.

Also, part of that “inspiring” quote was for him to “work harder” to help his people. Considering he was specifically referring to working harder, as well as his appeal to race with “black man” then it’s reasonable to assume his father’s work was inspiring. The thing is, there’s really nothing negative about that. His father had many achievements in academia and for the Kenyan people. To be inspired by that isn’t a negative. The question is how far has he gone with it? His policy decisions, to be more accurate, reflect a belief in neocolonialism. This is the new anti-colonialism. Due to most colonization being gone from the world, they’ve coined, “neocolonialism” as way to describe what some would call economic plunder of the the former colonies. There’s problems with that theory, but no need to get into it here.

CosmosDan said:
So while the evidence merely suggests a possibility, D’Sauza presents it as fact in the exaggerated negative terms. IMO that’s dishonest . It’s the same as when Beck mentions socialism and holds up a hammer and sickle. It’s not meant to inform or pose and honest , it’s meant to inflame emotions by bearing false witness with intentional distortion.In this democracy we can better spend our time with honest exchanges of information and careful examination of the benefits and drawbacks of policy specifics. Conservatives and liberals and moderates can have very different views but a common love of country and desire to move us forward and really solve problems. That’s what our politicians in DC ought to be doing. Real communication to find solutions , even compromises, rather than partisan political games.It’s fine to pose a realistic question, but exaggerated inflammatory ones only distract us from the real work. Hey, Obama’s father was an alcoholic and he’s been known to drink. Should we conclude he’s an alcoholic as well. The leap is just too much and intentionally negative and distorted.

It wouldn’t be a stretch if Obama had a DUI, would it? That’s what the meat of the matter is. You are correct in saying that the quotes alone don’t mean the man adopted his father’s views, but the quotes coupled with his actions make it a reasonable hypothesis.

CosmosDan said:
I really appreciate your time and input and the civil manner of our discussion. I always learn something when I’m forced to do some research.

I appreciate your time as well. I think we’re showing, at the least, people can disagree without being disagreeable.

CosmosDan said:
I went back and listened to the clip to refresh my memory. I did that again this morning. I don’t see what you’re claiming. Is it possible we’re talking about two different clips?IN the one I watch he talks about America being run by rich white people and how Obama doesn’t fit the mold. Hillary fits the mold. Hillary has never had a can whiz by her because of the color of her skin. Hillary has never been pulled over for being in the wrong neighborhood. Hilliary has never been called a nigger.

My bad, the “I’m white! I’m entitled” rant was Michael Pfleger’s and it was at Wright’s church. The people in the pews seemed to really enjoy that bit though.

I listened to Wright’s sermon again. It’s still pretty disturbing. He starts playing with race and class. He says God is on the poor’s “side” which implies that there is a side you must take- rich vs. poor. He then drags race into it by saying that God knows what it’s like to be a poor black man in a country run by rich white people. As if there aren’t poor white people, as if there aren’t rich black people, as if race affects poor people differently, etc. He then uses that as a segue into why people don’t like Obama. He absurdly says Obama’s not rich. That makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

But what point is he attempting to make by dragging race into it? He basically says that white people are his “enemies” that he supposedly has learned to love. But there is so much bitterness in your tone, that supposed “love” comes off as condascending and patronizing. That’s why his parishioners are so quick to hoot and holler when you start to condemn white people or supposed white entitlement.

CosmosDan said:
At no time does he accuse Hillary of feeling entitled to win.They may be another clip I missed. Here’s an artcle discussing him and perspectivehttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-sermon_29mar29,0,1943334,full.story , the sermon seeks to admonish members who may vote for Hillary Clinton because they think a black candidate can’t win. Wright likened their doubt to the doubt of Jesus’ disciples who did not believe he could feed a crowd with five loaves and two fishes.Wright’s recent comment that Hillary Clinton would never know what it feels like to be called the N-word also touched nerves. But Wright had his reasons for using that term, said Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a Wright protegePeople need to understand how profoundly painful that word is,” he said. “It speaks to an experience. He came from a different time. Because of the time he came from, he’s not going to just flippantly go along to get along in terms of how that word has hurt him in the past.”I’m not whitewashing anything.I’ve done a bit of study about Black Liberation Theology back then and some recently when James Cone came up. It may be hard for us to understand depending on our backgrounds but Wright grew up in a much more hateful racist America. That doesn’t mean I approve of what he says, but I understand and am a bit more tolerant.When I was in high school in the late 60s my sister married a black man. Suddenly I saw a hateful racist side to people in my family whom I had loved and respected. My dear sweet grandmother wouldn’t let him in the house because of what the neighbors might think. I didn’t stop loving them because of this. I was just shocked and mystified about the animosity over skin color. Try to imagine being told you’re to dirty to drink from the same fountain, use the same bathroom, eat at the same restaurant, because of your skin color. Imagine a lifetime of being treated as something less than a person , inferior and less deserving, and being expected to be grateful when treated with basic decency, because it’s implied you really don’t deserve it. This all happened not that long ago, within the living memory of many people. I find it very unempathetic when people react to black anger with self righteous condemnation and cries of racism. They’ve experienced about 1/1000th of what some of our black citizens have experienced and defend their right to judge.Racism is wrong from anyone, but we can address the issues with a little more patience and less condemnation.

Simply put, two wrongs don’t make a right. There were alot of “rich white people” that helped civil rights get done.

I think someone who has even more of a right to speak on this issue than Jeremiah Wright is Booker T Washington, who was born into slavery-

“I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction, and, besides, it was recognized and protected for years by the General Government….Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe…This I say, not to justify slavery — on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive — but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. ”

I wonder how that sentiment would be treated today? Would Jeremiah Wright accept something like that? To me, that represents one of my favorite Bible verses- “All things work together for good for those who love God.”

From 1911-

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.”

Here he’s predicting the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s and Jeremiah Wright’s who are to this day, almost 100 years after the quote, still considered to be leaders of the black community. That’s truly disheartening.

Haimerej said:
My bad, the “I’m white! I’m entitled” rant was Michael Pfleger’s and it was at Wright’s church. The people in the pews seemed to really enjoy that bit though.

Yep. I figured that out. I don’t know what to think of that guy. A white Catholic acting like he’s black. I don’t get it. I remember seeing Jimmy Swaggart ranting about the evils of homosexuality, made a comment that he’d kill one and tell god he died, as his congregation applauds. My point is that there are a lot of churches and some are pretty out there. BLT is something a lot of people know nothing about and to modern ears it does sound very racist. Although I don’t condone everything Wright has said and done I think it’s unfair to highlight the worst and condemn him, and by extension Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5h_FVbGac0

I listened to Wright’s sermon again. It’s still pretty disturbing. He starts playing with race and class. He says God is on the poor’s “side” which implies that there is a side you must take- rich vs. poor. He then drags race into it by saying that God knows what it’s like to be a poor black man in a country run by rich white people. As if there aren’t poor white people, as if there aren’t rich black people, as if race affects poor people differently, etc. He then uses that as a segue into why people don’t like Obama. He absurdly says Obama’s not rich. That makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

yeah, I caught the Obama’s not rich gaff. He’s not super rich but he’s doing okay.
The point of BLT in my limited understanding, is that Christianity as a whole as practiced in this country was ignoring the horrible moral crime of racism and segregation while preaching the words of Jesus. They felt that
simply waiting for things to change or a reward in heaven wasn’t enough. That it was time to make white Christians aware of their failing to live the words of Christ.
Luke 4:18
“ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor;He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind,To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
Mat 25:44 “Then they also will answer Him,[a] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
It was social activism grounded in faith and Jesus

But what point is he attempting to make by dragging race into it? He basically says that white people are his “enemies” that he supposedly has learned to love. But there is so much bitterness in your tone, that supposed “love” comes off as condascending and patronizing. That’s why his parishioners are so quick to hoot and holler when you start to condemn white people or supposed white entitlement.

It’s hard to understand. Although BLT was born to address a very specific real problem in the US it’s broader meaning is about the belief that Christians must do more to advocate for the poor if they are to live up to the words of Jesus. Black and white take on larger meanings and represent the wealthy oppressors who ignore the poor.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
“God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom.
This means that I cannot be free until all men are free. And if in some distant future I am no longer oppressed because of blackness, then I must take upon myself whatever form of human oppression exists in the society, affirming my identity with the victims. The identity must be made with the victims not because of sympathy, but because my own humanity is involved in my brother’s degradation”. James Cone

“In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color. The same is true for the literal and symbolic meaning of whiteness, which has the opposite meaning of blackness”. James Cone

It’s hard for people who aren’t familiar with BLT or the depth of racism that blacks experienced to understand. It wouldn’t be what I’d choose , but I understand it, and I don’t think it deserves to be demonized any more than other denominations that have questionable beliefs.

Once again , I want to say how I appreciate an interesting and civil discussion. Looking at these boards I’m sure you know they are the exception to the rule.

Haimerej said:
I think someone who has even more of a right to speak on this issue than Jeremiah Wright is Booker T Washington, who was born into slavery-

It just so happens that Up From Slavery by Booker T is one of my favorite all times books. Good choice.

“I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction, and, besides, it was recognized and protected for years by the General Government….Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe…This I say, not to justify slavery — on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive — but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. ”

I wonder how that sentiment would be treated today? Would Jeremiah Wright accept something like that? To me, that represents one of my favorite Bible verses- “All things work together for good for those who love God.”

From 1911-

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.”

Here he’s predicting the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s and Jeremiah Wright’s who are to this day, almost 100 years after the quote, still considered to be leaders of the black community. That’s truly disheartening.

great words and a wonderful book. An amazing human being,. It’s hard to condemn BLT and praise MLK as a great humanitarian because they are so similar. I agree that the downside of BLT is a certain “I am a victim and someone owes me” mentality in some people. I’m in TN and I’ve dealt with people who want to play the race card just to get something for free. Doesn’t work with me. Still, I wouldn’t claim all BLT preachers are just in it for the money. I try to be tolerant, and patient, forgiving people their human frailties because I know I need patience and forgiveness myself and have my own weaknesses to deal with. I try to avoid the “yours are worse than mine” game.
People strive and have their weaknesses and make their mistakes. In 2000+ years we are still a long way from truly living up to the words of Jesus. I think we need to work a little harder at coming together in respect and consideration, even when we disagree, and to remember to check out own eyes for specs first.

Haimerej said:
Simply put, two wrongs don’t make a right. There were alot of “rich white people” that helped civil rights get done.

Eventually! The point was to to keep up the fight until the battle was won, not just convince a few people.

Haimerej said:
Simply put, two wrongs don’t make a right. There were alot of “rich white people” that helped civil rights get done.

and something else to say here. It’s so easy to say this, two wrongs don’t make a right, but think about it in real terms. Whenever a great cause if fought for the human beings involved will make mistakes and occasionally make bad judgment calls. Are they supposed to not struggle for fear of doing something wrong?

If you’re saying don’t return anger for anger and hate for hate, racism for racism, then I agree, but let’s at least be realistic about the human condition. Living up to lofty ideals is something we’re all still working on. {I hope}

Just wanted to let you know I’m not the guy giving the thumbs down on your last posts. I was beginning to think we were the only one’s here. :D

CosmosDan said:
Yep. I figured that out. I don’t know what to think of that guy. A white Catholic acting like he’s black. I don’t get it. I remember seeing Jimmy Swaggart ranting about the evils of homosexuality, made a comment that he’d kill one and tell god he died, as his congregation applauds. My point is that there are a lot of churches and some are pretty out there. BLT is something a lot of people know nothing about and to modern ears it does sound very racist. Although I don’t condone everything Wright has said and done I think it’s unfair to highlight the worst and condemn him, and by extension Obama.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5h_FVbGac0

No offense here, but I think you’re perpetuating a stereotype. How is it that Pfleger is “acting like he’s black”? Isn’t that cultural perspective that he’s perpetuating merely that? A culture? When I hear that, I think of black people telling other black’s they’re “acting white” when they don’t conform to “urban” norms. Consider the backlash Bill Cosby received for, IMO, simply telling the black community the truth. I’ll address the specifics of BLT in the next few posts and why I think it’s more damaging than helpful.

CosmosDan said:
yeah, I caught the Obama’s not rich gaff. He’s not super rich but he’s doing okay.

About as well as Wright himself, IIRC. I think his own lifestyle actually betrays his message.

CosmosDan said:
The point of BLT in my limited understanding, is that Christianity as a whole as practiced in this country was ignoring the horrible moral crime of racism and segregation while preaching the words of Jesus. They felt thatsimply waiting for things to change or a reward in heaven wasn’t enough. That it was time to make white Christians aware of their failing to live the words of Christ.

I understand the sentiment, definitely. My only problem is when they decided to use the cudgel of the government to force people to live up to Christ’s teaching. I think “force” by it’s nature breeds resentment and is technically a form of oppression and coercion. I believe that’s why Jesus told the disciples not to lord over one another and to simply leave people alone who reject the Gospel.

CosmosDan said:
Luke 4:18“ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor;He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind,To set at liberty those who are oppressed;Mat 25:44 “Then they also will answer Him,[a] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’It was social activism grounded in faith and Jesus

Yes, I agree. But this is my view on the issue-

If you want to talk about being oppressed, there are few greater examples than the early Church. I think protestants as a whole have really limited themselves due to their lack of familiarity with the history of the Church. Sure, that’s a generalization, but I don’t often meet protestants with a good grasp of Church history. They seem to want to go from the end of the Bible to Martin Luther, and in doing so they miss alot of great examples of faith and great teachings from the Lord. For the record, I’m not Catholic.

Anyways- some of the greatest stories of faith that I’ve become familiar with are from the time before Christianity became legal. One of the main reasons Christ’s message spread so quickly is due to the saints that were singing songs of praise on their way to their deaths. There were people literally being saved along the way. There was no protesting what was being done to them. There was no sense of being a victim. These were people who were following Jesus and living Matt. 10:39.

Now, referencing the verses above-

Matt. 24:44- Those are individual mandates. Putting the Christian mandate of love and charity on the government is, IMO, a way for Christians to shirk their own responsibility. Also, it’s actually oppressive in that it forcefully takes from someone else against their will in order to live up to the mandate. Jesus didn’t say, “If you see someone who is poor, go shake down a rich guy and force him to help them.” No, we must do what’s within our own ability.

Luke 4:18- Jesus is quoting from Isaiah in reference to the Year of Jubilee, in which all debts were forgiven, etc. Jesus came to proclaim the Year of Jubilee. Now, what is He talking about? If He was talking about ending slavery as a practice, then He seems to have forgotten to tell people to free their slaves. He actually uses the slave to master example in many parables. Consider John 8:34-36. Jesus says he who sins is a slave to sin. He says the son sets you free and there are many other verses that talk about Christ setting us free. I believe He was proclaiming in the Luke verses that He has come to set us free from the yoke of sin. I believe saying that verse means we have to forcefully stop oppression is a twisting of it’s true intent.

Which brings me back to the early Church. Why was the gospel spread so quickly? Obviously, it was miraculous. But what circumstances were involved? The most oppressed people in the world, people who were condemned to death for simply saying they believed into Christ, were measurably happier than other people. They weren’t tearfully singing songs of praise to the Lord on their way to their deaths, they were beaming. They had something that other people didn’t have. Is there any greater witness to the world than seeing people who are in all ways supposed to be the bottom of society, the “dregs” if you will, being filled with more joy, peace, love, or forgiveness than the rest of society?

CosmosDan said:
It’s hard to understand. Although BLT was born to address a very specific real problem in the US it’s broader meaning is about the belief that Christians must do more to advocate for the poor if they are to live up to the words of Jesus.

Caring for the poor has been a staple of the Church since Christ. This is why I don’t really buy the argument that it was a response to white churches so much as a response to American culture. Any preacher worth his salt knows the story of the wheat and tares. Refusing a brother or sister in Christ for a cultural and not spiritual reason is generally a good indicator of someone who’s not following the Lord.

CosmosDan said:
Black and white take on larger meanings and represent the wealthy oppressors who ignore the poor.

I don’t buy that either. If it were truly about rich vs poor, there would be no need for the racial rhetoric. It seems they started off racially motivated and upon criticism decided to attach these terms to their racial words.

CosmosDan said:
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”.Martin Luther King, Jr.“God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom.This means that I cannot be free until all men are free. And if in some distant future I am no longer oppressed because of blackness, then I must take upon myself whatever form of human oppression exists in the society, affirming my identity with the victims. The identity must be made with the victims not because of sympathy, but because my own humanity is involved in my brother’s degradation”. James Cone

My response to this is to point to 1 Cor. 2:12-14. Cone is taking the spiritual words of Jesus and applying them to a natural understanding. Time after time we are told that we are set free from sin in Christ. Sin was the oppressive force on man. What does Cone think of the early Church? What does he think of Jesus saying that some of His followers would be killed or imprisoned for His sake? Is that not oppression? Saying that we cannot be free unless all men are free is an adsurd statement. It takes away the very real fact that people make their own decisions. Even Jesus said that we have a choice. If we apply that understanding to the natural world, it falls on it’s face. If we apply it spiritually, then he’s either preaching a gospel that all will be saved or no one will.

CosmosDan said:“In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color. The same is true for the literal and symbolic meaning of whiteness, which has the opposite meaning of blackness”. James Cone

This is mumbo jumbo. Gobblety gook. Is he saying that “whiteness” being the opposite of “blackness” means that being white is the opposite of “God’s own experience”? This is just a bunch of racially charged rhetoric that does nothing to further Christ or the Gospel.

CosmosDan said:
It’s hard for people who aren’t familiar with BLT or the depth of racism that blacks experienced to understand. It wouldn’t be what I’d choose , but I understand it, and I don’t think it deserves to be demonized any more than other denominations that have questionable beliefs. Once again , I want to say how I appreciate an interesting and civil discussion. Looking at these boards I’m sure you know they are the exception to the rule.

Well, I for one am not so magnanimous as you. I have a problem with teachings that damage the Body of Christ, as I believe this does. Don’t get me started on denominations. ;)

CosmosDan said:
It’s hard to condemn BLT and praise MLK as a great humanitarian because they are so similar.

I think the difference is MLK didn’t preach explicitly or implicitly that black people were special or that white people were particularly bad.

CosmosDan said:
I agree that the downside of BLT is a certain “I am a victim and someone owes me” mentality in some people. I’m in TN and I’ve dealt with people who want to play the race card just to get something for free. Doesn’t work with me. Still, I wouldn’t claim all BLT preachers are just in it for the money.

I don’t think they’re in it for the money. They believe what they say.

CosmosDan said:
I try to be tolerant, and patient, forgiving people their human frailties because I know I need patience and forgiveness myself and have my own weaknesses to deal with. I try to avoid the “yours are worse than mine” game.People strive and have their weaknesses and make their mistakes. In 2000+ years we are still a long way from truly living up to the words of Jesus. I think we need to work a little harder at coming together in respect and consideration, even when we disagree, and to remember to check out own eyes for specs first.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, in regard to being “tolerant”- there are things we should not tolerate. Teachings that damage the Church and hinder the growth of Christ should not be tolerated. BLT, IMO, at the very least divides the church along racial lines. Col. 3:11 specifically forbids that. Consider Jesus’ prayer in John 17. He asks twice that His followers be one, and then mentions them being perfected into oneness. Division in the body of Christ has been perhaps the greatest damage the enemy has done to the testimony of the Church. Anything that contributes to that division is something that should not be tolerated.

CosmosDan said:
Eventually! The point was to to keep up the fight until the battle was won, not just convince a few people.

You can trace the abolotiionist movement back pretty far.

Also, this may be unpopular, but at this point what the NAACP and those preaching BLT wanted has been achieved. Now, they’re actually lobbying for favorable treatment rather than equal rights. Equal rights under the law does not equate to equal outcomes and not all cases of inequality are due to racial discrimination. Aren’t the highest achievers by race in this country Asian? They certainly faced comparable discrimination as blacks.

The problem in the black community is that there are too many people like what Booker T referred to. They don’t want black people to “lose their grievances.” I think the media has played a role in keeping the Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s prominent. These men need to be ignored. I think the black community would do well to find leaders along the lines of a Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Larry Elder. Instead these accomplished men are shunned because they have libertarian beliefs. They don’t buy into the victimhood as an excuse for not achieving argument and voice their opinions. I’ve seen Thomas Sowell quotes be referred to as those of a racist white person when the individual didn’t know who it came from. This is the problem- any call for the black community to pick themselves up, stop blaming white oppression, and go out and achieve is met with an almost knee-jerk reaction to call it racist.

CosmosDan said:
and something else to say here. It’s so easy to say this, two wrongs don’t make a right, but think about it in real terms. Whenever a great cause if fought for the human beings involved will make mistakes and occasionally make bad judgment calls. Are they supposed to not struggle for fear of doing something wrong? If you’re saying don’t return anger for anger and hate for hate, racism for racism, then I agree, but let’s at least be realistic about the human condition. Living up to lofty ideals is something we’re all still working on. {I hope}

I agree, but when mistakes aren’t recognized or, even worse, justified, they become a much bigger problem.

People who preach to congregations are putting themselves in a position of great responsibility. The message they preach must be held up to the standard. There is a difference between tolerating a member of the Body who’s struggling with sin and tolerating a member of the Body who is preaching an errant message.

Haimerej said:
Just wanted to let you know I’m not the guy giving the thumbs down on your last posts. I was beginning to think we were the only one’s here. :D

Thanks for saying so, but I don’t even look at the thumbs up and down. It doesn’t matter to me at all.

Haimerej said:
No offense here, but I think you’re perpetuating a stereotype. How is it that Pfleger is “acting like he’s black”? Isn’t that cultural perspective that he’s perpetuating merely that? A culture? When I hear that, I think of black people telling other black’s they’re “acting white” when they don’t conform to “urban” norms. Consider the backlash Bill Cosby received for, IMO, simply telling the black community the truth. I’ll address the specifics of BLT in the next few posts and why I think it’s more damaging than helpful.

Maybe. It’s like white urban kids copying the dress and lingo of urban blacks in an attempt to be cool.

I’ve only watched the guy a couple of times but it seems to me he’s trying to copy , not only the style but even the enunciation of animated black preachers. I may be wrong.

Haimerej said:
I understand the sentiment, definitely. My only problem is when they decided to use the cudgel of the government to force people to live up to Christ’s teaching. I think “force” by it’s nature breeds resentment and is technically a form of oppression and coercion. I believe that’s why Jesus told the disciples not to lord over one another and to simply leave people alone who reject the Gospel.

Yes, I agree. But this is my view on the issue-

This is a very relevant point. What do you define as force? The civil rights movement and BLT was born from the fact that white Christians for the most part either participated in or remained silent abut the moral crimes of racism and segregation, about 2000 years after Christ. How long should people wait for their fellow man to practice what they preach before they act?
If you haven’t read it in a while read MLKs Letter from Birmingham Jail
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Gandhi’s non violent non cooperation is a brilliant and morally correct approach to social injustice and inspired in part by the words of Jesus. Jesus didn’t force people but he had no problem pointing out hypocrisy and moral failings when he saw them. What the civil rights movement did was to force people to look at the reality of what was going on, rather than allow them to continue to ignore it, or justify it. Then, once the injustice of it all became apparent to more people , we exercised our rights as citizens to create laws protecting the rights of our fellow citizens. Nobody was forced to do anything except obey the laws duly passed in a democratic republic.
Do you think Jesus pointing out injustice and sin or his commanding the apostles to go and speak the truth, bred any resentment? Seems like it did.

Haimerej said:
There was no protesting what was being done to them. There was no sense of being a victim. These were people who were following Jesus and living Matt. 10:39.

Apples and oranges. This is not a religion being oppressed by the government. What we’re talking about in US racism is white Christians ignoring the teachings of Christ to treat their fellow Christians horribly. Are you suggesting they should havce just prayed and played nice and waited for God to change the hearts of white Christians? The other major difference was the government in place. As a democratic republic citizens have the right to address grievances. They were exercising their rights as citizens.

Now, referencing the verses above-

Matt. 24:44- Those are individual mandates. Putting the Christian mandate of love and charity on the government is, IMO, a way for Christians to shirk their own responsibility. Also, it’s actually oppressive in that it forcefully takes from someone else against their will in order to live up to the mandate. Jesus didn’t say, “If you see someone who is poor, go shake down a rich guy and force him to help them.” No, we must do what’s within our own ability.

I keep seeing this argument.
Honest, If more Christians had stepped up and followed the teachings of Christ none of these laws would be necessary. Nobody is trying to mandate Christian love, nor could they. We do have the right as citizens to decide together through due process what kind of society we want to have, what our tax structure is, how we spend that money. It’s not un Christian for citizens to vote their conscience and have different opinions.

Luke 4:18- Jesus is quoting from Isaiah in reference to the Year of Jubilee, in which all debts were forgiven, etc. Jesus came to proclaim the Year of Jubilee. Now, what is He talking about? If He was talking about ending slavery as a practice, then He seems to have forgotten to tell people to free their slaves. He actually uses the slave to master example in many parables. Consider John 8:34-36. Jesus says he who sins is a slave to sin. He says the son sets you free and there are many other verses that talk about Christ setting us free. I believe He was proclaiming in the Luke verses that He has come to set us free from the yoke of sin. I believe saying that verse means we have to forcefully stop oppression is a twisting of it’s true intent. IMO You’re using the term forcefully in an inappropriate manner. Working to change the laws of the land to to better reflect the principles of our Constitution and our own sense of humanity is not doing anything forcefully. Didn’t Paul write to the early churches and instruct them and chastise them for not living up to the teachings. He didn’t wait for them to gradually change their mind. He took action to tell them they were wrong.
It’s often pointed that Jesus didn’t publicly condemn slavery as an institution. I don’t think a superficial change in society was part of his mission. He saw that mankind had to change from the inside. We do see that after his ascension there wasn’t always harmony among his disciples or even the twelve. We have struggled to truly understand and live according to his teachings. Many Christian factions became one that persecuted the others, which eventually became many again as protestants broke away from the church. I don’t think pushing to change the laws an a democratic republic is anything more forcefull or off target than anything Christians have done over the centuries. It’s not trying to force people to be more Christian. It’s simply exercising rights as citizens and speaking to justice.

. Is there any greater witness to the world than seeing people who are in all ways supposed to be the bottom of society, the “dregs” if you will, being filled with more joy, peace, love, or forgiveness than the rest of society?

kinda like civil rights marches singing “We Shall Overcome” huh?

You can’t realistically compare ancients societies in details, but perhaps the human condition and principles. Would ancient Christians have non violently campaigned for justice had they lived in a democratic republic? I tend to think they would have. Just as they risked their lives to spread the gospel then people risked their lives
to take a stand against oppression.

Haimerej said:
Caring for the poor has been a staple of the Church since Christ. This is why I don’t really buy the argument that it was a response to white churches so much as a response to American culture. Any preacher worth his salt knows the story of the wheat and tares. Refusing a brother or sister in Christ for a cultural and not spiritual reason is generally a good indicator of someone who’s not following the Lord.

Who do you think made up the American culture back then? White Christians by a huge margin. As unpleasant as it is to look at that part of our history and the history of Christianity back then, somehow most white Christians justified incredible prejudice and injustice against their brothers. It’s factual history, rather than a matter of opinion.

I don’t buy that either. If it were truly about rich vs poor, there would be no need for the racial rhetoric. It seems they started off racially motivated and upon criticism decided to attach these terms to their racial words.

You really have to put it in context of the times. BLT was born to address a very real and specific oppression that was occurring in this country. Racial separation had already been established by white churches not allowing blacks to worship with them on Sunday.
All I’m saying is that BLT isn’t any more of a perversion of Christianity than many of the denominations already out there. Jesus didn’t tell us to smack each other in the head and fall down in the spirit or to run around the church mumbling gibberish but people do it every Sunday

My response to this is to point to 1 Cor. 2:12-14. Cone is taking the spiritual words of Jesus and applying them to a natural understanding. Time after time we are told that we are set free from sin in Christ. Sin was the oppressive force on man. What does Cone think of the early Church? What does he think of Jesus saying that some of His followers would be killed or imprisoned for His sake? Is that not oppression? Saying that we cannot be free unless all men are free is an adsurd statement

Absurd? Really? Is there some point where we no longer have to care for others and take a moral stand? Didn’t Jesus want his followers to take his words and apply them to our everyday life and be expressed in our actions? He spoke of it over and over again. It’s not enough to merely mouth the words and call Jesus Lord or claim you are feeling the spirit. It is to be reflected in out day to day lives as we interact with our fellow man. right? Are you suggesting that because the early Christians were oppressed by Rome that black Christians should have accepted their oppression by a predominantly white society, that was other so called Christians? Comon! You seem to be expecting black Christians to live up to some ideal of Christianity that you don’t expect from white Christians. I just don’t see how the early church relates in this way.

It takes away the very real fact that people make their own decisions. Even Jesus said that we have a choice. If we apply that understanding to the natural world, it falls on it’s face. If we apply it spiritually, then he’s either preaching a gospel that all will be saved or no one will.

Nope. He’s saying as Christians you never stop trying to live the teachings of Jesus. You don’t save yourself and rest easy waiting for your reward. You strive to reach out to others as long as there are others to reach out to. Isn’t that right? Aren’t Christians supposed to persevere to the end?

This is mumbo jumbo. Gobblety gook. Is he saying that “whiteness” being the opposite of “blackness” means that being white is the opposite of “God’s own experience”? This is just a bunch of racially charged rhetoric that does nothing to further Christ or the Gospel.

I see it as him at least recognizing that it’s about a lot more than race. Looking at how diverse Christianity is today my guess is there’s a whole lot of practices that do nothing to further the gospel of Christ. I’m not defending BLT in any way other than to recognize where and when it came from, and to say it’s no more a perversion or demonic than many regularly practiced forms. Less so than many.

Well, I for one am not so magnanimous as you. I have a problem with teachings that damage the Body of Christ, as I believe this does. Don’t get me started on denominations. ;)

In that case I think you see my point. I’d agree that the use of such contrasting language , and it’s continued use is to divisive for my tastes, but Christians have struggled for centuries now to try and understand and live the teachings of Jesus with only partial success. I don’t think any on the denominations are perfect in their understanding or practice. It just annoyed me that this particular theology was singled out and painted so badly in a completely unjust way. If all the other and occasionally bizarre practices are accepted as within acceptable boundaries to be Christian then it seemed grossly unfair to paint this one as a perversion and demonic. Until Christianity is perfect all perversions to some degree, still trying to fully grasp and live what Jesus taught.

Haimerej said:
I think the difference is MLK didn’t preach explicitly or implicitly that black people were special or that white people were particularly bad.

I agree. MLK was clearly focusing on discrimination against blacks in this country and I believe if we look at more of his language we;d see that , but I can accept that BLT took the same principles over a line by using language that emphasized race. In the big picture I find that difference to be far to small to on one hand praise MLK and then on the other condemn BLT. Far to harsh and shallow a judgment IMO

I agree wholeheartedly. However, in regard to being “tolerant”- there are things we should not tolerate. Teachings that damage the Church and hinder the growth of Christ should not be tolerated. BLT, IMO, at the very least divides the church along racial lines

Please understand that the division on racial lines was not done by BLT, but long before then by white Christians. Many people still living and denominations that were around a mere 50 years ago were far more guilty than BLT. BLT was a response to that division. Not a perfect one to be sure, but perhaps an improvement. It’s very hard to judge the past by today’s standards that didn’t apply then. BLT did not bar whites from their church

. Col. 3:11 specifically forbids that. Consider Jesus’ prayer in John 17. He asks twice that His followers be one, and then mentions them being perfected into oneness. Division in the body of Christ has been perhaps the greatest damage the enemy has done to the testimony of the Church. Anything that contributes to that division is something that should not be tolerated.

I agree and that’s a nice ideal. Then please explain all the different denominations that remain divided over rather minor points of doctrine. My sisters church is struggling financially but they can’t go to the Methodist church in town because OMG they let women preach. Christianity is very much divided so if that’s the condemnation then you have your work cut out for you. At least their division is over a serious moral issue rather than some minor doctrinal point. And once more, BLT did not create racial division. If you’re going to judge them then at least equally judge the Christians before them that established the division.

Haimerej said:
You can trace the abolotiionist movement back pretty far.

Also, this may be unpopular, but at this point what the NAACP and those preaching BLT wanted has been achieved. Now, they’re actually lobbying for favorable treatment rather than equal rights. Equal rights under the law does not equate to equal outcomes and not all cases of inequality are due to racial discrimination. Aren’t the highest achievers by race in this country Asian? They certainly faced comparable discrimination as blacks.

I think there’s a lot to what you say, but IMO it’s all part of the process of healing the wound of racism. I think the time has come to recognize the progress made but also acknowledge that there is still more work to do. I agree that one of the downsides has been blacks believing themselves to be victims. I had a guy trying to buy a laptop with a stolen credit card and when I questioned him he accused me of being a racist.
Still, we got here as a nation together and we need to try and get further along toward healing together and accept the fallout of our common past. Not that we should accept what might be called reverse racism without question , but perhaps with a little more patience rather than righteous indignation.

Haimerej said:
I agree, but when mistakes aren’t recognized or, even worse, justified, they become a much bigger problem.

People who preach to congregations are putting themselves in a position of great responsibility. The message they preach must be held up to the standard. There is a difference between tolerating a member of the Body who’s struggling with sin and tolerating a member of the Body who is preaching an errant message.

Once again you’re speaking of an ideal standard that doesn’t really exist in reality. The same style of preaching , doctrinal points and service does not appeal to everyone and preachers are human with human failings. You’re assuming his language is racist and therefore unacceptable,or far worse than other preachers. I don’t think it is. I think it’s just one possibility in the spectrum of preachers.