so segregation and worship go hand in hand? it's this type of mentality that begets the vitriol. us vs. them in the house of the Lord.I agree that there are a lot of churches in Chicago (I lived there for the first 18 years of my life) and that Obama could have chosen from many of them. But I feel like you view yourself as unveiling a sinister plot that his been in the works by Obama because of something he studied in college and because he chose Trinity.
Further-
Socialism, ideas by Marx, etc. don't make my sirens go off like they do yours. None of these is inherently evil. But rather- governments have done sinister things in their borrowing from/application of such concepts...
There are positive elements of socialism all over America- the way we run our fire departments for instance.
And as far as why he chose Trinity- my tune hasn't changed. My understanding was and still is that Obama chose Trinity because it is considered the largest black church in Chicago.
I am Polish. If I was just getting started in local (Chicago) politics I would likely attend the largest Polish church I could find in Chicago. This makes sense to me.
I don't think I am the only one who disagrees with you. I think I am just the only one goofy enough to bite and keep coming back for more...
Is Obama a wolf in sheep's clothing ?
- Thread starter Furthur
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
...and the Pope used to serve in Hitler's army. What does that have to do with anything? The name was given to Obama. If he had changed his name to "Smith," people would accuse him of trying to hide his heritage.
Apparently you didn't see that stupid Newsweek cover story about him being called Barry vs. Barack :roll:
You can quibble about the Reverend, his comments, out of context and "spun" sound bites, and church membership stats all you want, but Obama was drawn to the area's largest church by a charismatic leader who has done a great deal of good for a severely blighted neighborhood. I don't think people unfamiliar with the area realize what that neighborhood was like and how much it has drastically improved in the years since Obama joined that church.
scooterbug, you are correct. I try to refrain from reading that crap, aka - "news" magazines.
I don't know that neighborhood (never been to Chicago). Are you saying that Rev Wright is responsible for changing that neighborhood, or Obama is responsible for that change?
I don't know that neighborhood (never been to Chicago). Are you saying that Rev Wright is responsible for changing that neighborhood, or Obama is responsible for that change?
Normally I don't either, but I spent 2.5 weeks in a mountaintop cabin w/no TV so I am now caught up on Newsweek, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Outdoor Life, and crossword puzzles ;-).
Rev Wright has done a lot of good in that neighborhood (Obama probably has too). Think public housing, race riots, poverty, slums, and giant freeways combined with pockets of great wealth and a rich history and culture.
Was trying to think of pop culture references - Blues Brothers, Barbershop, Mack the Knife song etc.
Rev Wright has done a lot of good in that neighborhood (Obama probably has too). Think public housing, race riots, poverty, slums, and giant freeways combined with pockets of great wealth and a rich history and culture.
Was trying to think of pop culture references - Blues Brothers, Barbershop, Mack the Knife song etc.
Last edited:
...In hard times people DO cling to their faith for solace..DUH!
oh and also..Religion IS a man made construct and is an opiate for the masses. That WAS the intended purpose!
QED
dsilvar
Okay what is the deal with this William Ayers character that they are talking about on Hannity?
So in Pa. the Catholic vote went to Clinton 71% to 29% for Obama.
That my friends is the Tsunami that I have been predicting with this thread.
Given the fact that there are more than 60 million Catholics in the country I think you'll agree that this doesn't bode well for the Dems.
I'm thinking that Obama will have a very poor showing in Nov. and take the ticket down with him.
Mitt will run in 2012 and again in 2016 so that gives you donkeys till 2020 to figure out a better way to select a candidate.
I would suggest doing away with caucuses which skew the result to the radical wing.
That my friends is the Tsunami that I have been predicting with this thread.
Given the fact that there are more than 60 million Catholics in the country I think you'll agree that this doesn't bode well for the Dems.
I'm thinking that Obama will have a very poor showing in Nov. and take the ticket down with him.
Mitt will run in 2012 and again in 2016 so that gives you donkeys till 2020 to figure out a better way to select a candidate.
I would suggest doing away with caucuses which skew the result to the radical wing.
Further, I don't know about your predictions, but I definitely agree with your assessment of the Caucus situation. It skews the selection of delegates no end, IMO, and should be eliminated if the goal is a level playing field.