Obama finally forced to resign!

L

LanceOregon

Moderator
Obama finally decided to cut his losses, and toss Trinity United Church of Christ under the bus. He has officially resigned from the Church, an will have no further relationship with it.

Now Obama has called this church his "family" for the later part of his life. How can he now turn on those that he was the closest to, and instead reject them??

Interestingly, Obama decided to just have his campaign staff issue a press release about this, instead of him having a press conference, as he has had on so many other issues. Of course, if he did that, then some reporters might of had some embarrassing questions to ask him about it.

See:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-quits-controversial-church/


.
 
Forced to Resign?

He only resigned as a political move. He was a member of that church for 20 years! His only motive in resigning is to distance himself from those that are hurting his chances for office.

Does he truly think that Rev. Wrights and Fr. Pflegers words were wrong? No.

The sad fact is that the "uninformed" will fall for this and claim that he is "interested in unity". Give me a break:barf:
 
No, I think Obama has seen the error in judgement he made in the past and truly wants to change it. He isn't the only person to go to church for 20 years and never listen to what the preacher said. I think it is a good thing Obama has rejected racism publicly. Too bad other politicians won't follow suit.
 
Correct move,

both politically and ethically.

Politically, it won't hurt him much... McCain's had his own pastor problems, and when you add in Robertson, Falwell, and (pedophile) Dobson, he's not gonna go there. Time-wise, it's early enough that it won't hurt him much in the fall. So far as I can tell, anyone who would be swayed by this stuff wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Ethically, while I wish he'd done it sooner, I'm not qualified to judge what will push someone into a decision. I can sort of say that I wouldn't have stayed with Trinity for that long, but then, as an unbeliever, I wouldn't have been in the pew in the first place. So who am I to say?

For what little it's worth, my mom's a lay leader in the UCC church in Eureka, CA. She's been troubled by some of what's come out of Trinity UCC, but she's also been able to provide some perspective that I, who stand outside the faith, wouldn't have known. Suffice it to say, there's more here than meets the YouTube. Of course, I think the whole thing is nonsense, so take that with a grain of salt.

As to the Father's specific sermon, the only issue I'd take is the added adjective of "white". I don't think Hillary Clinton's a racist. Geraldine Ferraro's another matter. But for Senator Clinton, so far as I can tell, the issue with Senator Obama is not that he's black, but that he's winning.

Without the racial overtones, which were really weird coming from a white dude, would anyone really disagree with the Father's characterization?

She really seems to have believed her own hype, that this nomination was hers from "day 1". She seems to be taking it as a personal insult that someone else would have the unbridled temerity to take it away from her. When I hear her, I keep think on the seagulls in "Finding Nemo." "Mine... mine...mine... mine..."

I just don't think this'll have legs.

--Shannon
 
It was mostly snark...

related to his infamous "show your penis to your son so he'll see that it's bigger than his and he won't become gay" piece.

That's so creepy that I can't help but wonder about latent predilections for little boys. I certainly wouldn't leave anyone who'd said something like that alone with my son.

But no, I have no evidence that the man is actually a pedophile.

But this is OT, and I probably should have refrained from using him as an example. Robertson and Foulwill are bad enough.

--Shannon
 
Well,

If you look at the 1960 election, you might not be so quick to discount the effects of the dead... ;)

But as to Falwell, it's more about the movement he helped to create, and McCain's current need to tap into that movement. Which seems not to like him much, and I think that's why he's had to cozy up to people like Parsley and Hagee.

Both of whom he's now distanced himself from, and good on him for doing so.

But I think the parallels are too close to make using Wright and Pflager a viable strategy for him. Plus, while I disagree with Senator McCain on a lot of things, I don't think he's a hypocrite. So I don't think that he'll be touching Obama's church issues. That was really the point.

Which I allowed myself to be pulled somewhat away from by how deeply all of these people anger me. I meant what I wrote, I'm not weaseling out of that, but this whole digression would have been unnecessary if I hadn't written it.

--Shannon
 
He said he resigned because he was bringing too much attention on the church and it was not fair to them. He has consistently missed the opportunity to renounce racist things said in his church and he did it again. Is it coincidence that he happens to be connected to so many radical leftist racists, terrorists and Marxists?
 
And in the last century Marxist governments killed an estimated 150 million of their own citizens. Now, it seems both Democrat candidates want to try it again.

Google "Black Liberation Theology" and you will see how it replaces Christianity with Black Separatrist Marxism. Obama seems to have gone along with it for the last 20 years, until it received too much news and he resigned from the church to stop the publicity it caused them, which happened today. Notice he did not renounce Marxism or Black Liberation Racism. He said he was bringing too much attention on the church. It is in true Saul Alinsky fashion that he found he was not supposed to reveal his real intent until he had the power to implement it. Hillary is much better at following "The Alinsky Method".
 
And you can back that up

precisely how??

I've been a Democrat my entire voting life. If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that the nominee of my party wants to kill off half the population of the United States, I will go down to my local Registrar's office as soon as I get back to San Diego and change my registration to the party of your choice.

I mean it.

--Shannon
 
Obama's problems with his church won't go away just because he threw his church under the bus. Wright and Pfleger have a sick need to run to the nearest camera and microphone like a moth goes to a light bulb. They'll surface over and over again taking swipes at anyone just to get more than their 15 minutes of fame.
 
Barry O is hoping no one will notice whose company he continues to keep after this "resignation". This ploy is no better than Pfleger's "apology". There is absolutely nothing in Pfleger's past which makes his speech an aberration. So an "apology" is just low-grade night soil.

If Barry O can so conveniently dump his former "spriritual advisor" who he "cannot deny any more than himself", what DOES the little man really stand for? Does he have any commitments that are non-negotiable?

What would he really say is intolerable? He makes all these bones about being Christian and tied to his church...and dumps it when it works against his quest for power. It is like Hillary the Liar...just when does the lying (or, for Barry, the resignations) stop?

What is so core to either of them that they can say the same thing every time, no matter what you do to them?

That is the key to picking the right...or least bad...candidate.

It may not bother you, if you have nothing you would fight for under any circumstances. I do. That is an observation, not self-approval, as I could be wrong in what I think is worth fighting for. My answer on some things will not change whatever happens to me.

I think the question is what really is at Barry's core, or is this just another tactical move?

I think it is tactics. His record is unremarkable, with "here" votes to duck hard issues, and neither he nor Hill have any notable legislation to point at, unless you include failures and earmarks.

IF Bush is such a liar and manipulator, then why would anyone want Barry? Or Hill? Except for their more aggressively socialist agendas, it is the same formula of deception and posture. If McClellan is so on point about Bush and propoganda...is there anyone more principled out there?

Phrased another way, why vote for a poseur to replace a poseur? Maybe your preference is for a really socialist poseur...he/she is YOUR kind of poseur...but are you going to get what you want from a poseur? After all, today's heartfelt promise is tomorrow's used kleenex for a poseur.

And if you don't see that, you need some help.
 
He isn't the only person to go to church for 20 years and never listen to what the preacher said.
Click to expand...

That would not give me much confidence in him listening to the advice of others then.

A president need to be a good listener, just as much as being a good speaker.

.
 
These people (Wright, etc) are trying to defeat Obama in my opinion. They will lose their racism wedge issue if Obama is elected president (and Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakahn). There are other reasons to want Obama to be defeated (hatred of Marxism) that offsets the implied continuation of race wars that these people seem to be pushing.
 
Two options:
(1) Obama isn't a racist, but also isn't smart enough to figure out in 20 years that the people running his church are racist freaks.

(2) Obama is a racist, but figured that anti-white racism would be tolerated by the public and that the could play the race card and get a free pass.

Either way, he isn't presidential material.

OP'd bybenign.neglect: Obama did the right thing. This will widen his victory over McCain in November.
Click to expand...
Not likely. The Democrats are hopelessly divided, the Hillary people hate Obama and wont vote for him, and there are more Hillary supporters than Obama supporters (Hillary leads in the popular vote.) BTW: what color is the Kool-Aid today?
 
The Democrats are hopelessly divided, the Hillary people hate Obama and wont vote for him, and there are more Hillary supporters than Obama supporters (Hillary leads in the popular vote.)
Click to expand...

Miscalculations like this are why the Republicans will fail catastrophically in November. I don't think Obama will just win. I think he will win in a landslide. I think he will carry several southern states that haven't voted Democrat in 30yrs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top