Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You spend as much if not more time here then I do, I'm pretty sure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You spend as much if not more time here then I do, I'm pretty sure.

---

You missed the effing point, you ugly minded jackass. I don't consider the RWED to be a scum trap. You do. Your blanket contempt for those who disagree with you blinds you beyond reach of even the simplest irony from me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First you dismiss the racism of one man because he supports a candidate you sympathize with while condemning another man who doesn’t support that candidate.

---

Quote:

---

And now you make personal attacks against me, while accusing me of showing contempt for those who disagree with me. When in fact, I have no contempt at all for you, other then your personal attacks of me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
For me, discussions with you are the scum of this board and so I tend to avoid them. I've intended to make my feelings clear since you posted your ugly disrespect for the rest of us, but I've had better things to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
...I don't think meeting someone three times removed from a candidate gives me any insight into that candidate, just as meeting Prescott Bush would necessarily give me any insight into GW Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I certainly don't need you to admit your contempt for me as an individual when you made your contempt for everyone who takes the RWED seriously plain in your "scum trap" post, claiming that the purpose of the RWED was to keep people whom you habitually disagree with and disapprove of (Signy, Frem, etc.--aka: the scum) from "polluting" the rest of the forum. My contempt for you is not hypocritical, it is open and direct, and to my mind, well earned.

For me, discussions with you are the scum of this board and so I tend to avoid them. I've intended to make my feelings clear since you posted your ugly disrespect for the rest of us, but I've had better things to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, let me put it this way: Would you look closely at a candidates spouse? Parents? Former employers? Contributors? Staff members? Lobbyists?

I think I could make a case that any candidate spends at least as much time with these family members and associates as they do with a minister, and that these contacts are at least as likely to influence a candidate's thinking if not more so. I mean, hell, I attended a church for 20 year with the stupidest Polish priest ever. Is that gonna stick to my shoe for the rest of my life?

If you're not going to look in detail at the entire context of a candidate's associations, then why focus on this one person? I think it just panders to a secret paranioa that whites have about a "black agenda". And, like those who are STILL paranoid about Saddam's "WMD" (HA!) there is no way to lay to rest anyone's paranoia about it.

---

Quote:

---

Because unlike you, me, and Joe Blow, Rev. Wright has an audience. This seemed to make a difference when we were discussing Don Imus, so why not now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Because when we were discussing Don Imus, we were discussing Don Imus, not the girls of the basketball team. If you want to discuss Rev Wright and his audience, then go ahead and discuss Rev Wright and his audience. But assuming that Obama follows lock-step with everything his minister says is just silly.

---

Quote:

---

How about 'guilty by association'?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

How about 'guilty by association'?

---

Because it's a stupid premise?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I see we xposted. Like I said: Why stop at one contact? Especially a contact that has no quid pro quo attached? If you're going to judge a person by "the company he keeps" then look at those who would influence that person day to day: their boss, their spouse, the lobbyists that wheedle them and the staffers that feed them information. You laso have to look at their history: What have they done in the past that was significant? Do they have patterns of behavior?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
To focus on a single person and then blow up the significance until it blots out everything else is just hysteria.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about looking at this from another angle. I remember the "scum trap" analogy and thought it quite apropos. The whole reason RWED was initialy formed was to keep discussions such as this from the regular board. A point that I thought Finn made quite clear. We all can wax poetic about our shared interest, Firefly, but things can get quite heated when discussin politics and the like. I've often found it interesting that such diametrically opposite individuals could find themselves enamoured of the same show, but I digress.
Instead of scaring off potential recruits at the main board, our crap finging sessions were sent to RWED where the inquisitive can go if so inclined. I believe it was more the tone and subject of these discussions, not the discussers themselves which are the "scum" that requires "trapping".
But hey, far be it for me to put words in Finn's mouth. If he actually meant to call people scum than I guess that is his right as well. Heard much worse insults in these parts than that though, much worse.

---

Quote:

---

RWED is largely a joke. (Slam against those of us who take it seriously.) It’s full of conversations and ideas that are more fanciful and unrealistic then probably any discussion anywhere else on the board. (Surely Finn is not including himself as the author of any such conversations and ideas.) The fact that there is no moderation means that real debate is buried under dishonesty and personal attacks and crazy paranoid delusions.(All presumably from people Finn doesn't like, people not Finn--and begs the question, "Why does he waste his time?") But it creates a reservoir into which all the crap goes. Like a filtration system in a pool, it attracts all the those people(aka: "all the crap" referenced in the previous sentence) and all that discussion that would otherwise foul the waters and eventually ruin the board completely. By keeping all the Bush-haters, for instance, (Exactly!) in this little room, discussion in the other boards can continue without that destabilizing influence...(...of people other than Finn, of course.)

---

Quote:

---

Blowing things up is counter-productive, so is glossing things over. Two different kinds of hysteria, both just as dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, let me put it this way: Would you look closely at a candidates spouse? Parents? Former employers? Contributors? Staff members? Lobbyists?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But back to Finn. You don't have to put words in his mouth because he speaks for himself. Back in the WTF? People on here voted that Bush should be prez in '04?! thread he said:

Quote:

---

RWED is largely a joke. (Slam against those of us who take it seriously.) It’s full of conversations and ideas that are more fanciful and unrealistic then probably any discussion anywhere else on the board. (Surely Finn is not including himself as the author of any such conversations and ideas.) The fact that there is no moderation means that real debate is buried under dishonesty and personal attacks and crazy paranoid delusions.(All presumably from people Finn doesn't like, people not Finn--and begs the question, "Why does he waste his time?") But it creates a reservoir into which all the crap goes. Like a filtration system in a pool, it attracts all the those people(aka: "all the crap" referenced in the previous sentence) and all that discussion that would otherwise foul the waters and eventually ruin the board completely. By keeping all the Bush-haters, for instance, (Exactly!) in this little room, discussion in the other boards can continue without that destabilizing influence...(...of people other than Finn, of course.)

---

Hardly the neutral analogy you propose he offered us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You missed the effing point, you ugly minded jackass. I don't consider the RWED to be a scum trap. You do. Your blanket contempt for those who disagree with you blinds you beyond reach of even the simplest irony from me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
Auraptor:

As to the posted question, "You wanna meet the REAL Rev. Wright???"

Yeah, I'd like to. Unfortunately, your posting doesn't tell me a damn thing about him, except that he's apparently read books written by someone else that may (or may not) have had an influence on his personal theology.

Oh, wow. What a shocker, that a religious black man growing up in the civil rights era might look to sources and viewpoints within the black community. Tomorrow's headline: "Teenagers interested in sex." That's just about as surprising.

---

Quote:

---

James Cone was the first person to create a systematic Black theology. He felt that Black Christians in Northern America should not follow the "white Church", as it had failed to support them in their struggle for equal rights. Though this theme runs throughout Cone's work, his early books (Black Theology and Black Power and A Black Theology of Liberation) draw heavily on mainstream white theologians like Karl Barth (on whom Cone had written his doctoral thesis) and Paul Tillich.

---

Quote:

---

Some of Cones quotes have drawn controversy. Barak Obama's former minister Jeremiah Wright was inspired by Cone. Although Obama has condemned some of most controversial statements of Wright as needlessly divisive and distorted, Wright's ministry is founded on the black theology that Cone helped to create

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Look Finn, it's very obvious to everyone- except maybe you!- that anyone who disagrees with you is "scum". So. Whatever. You might convince yourself that's not what you "meant" or how it "should" be interpreted but most people here get what you said quite clearly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Look Finn, it's very obvious to everyone- except maybe you!- that anyone who disagrees with you is "scum". So. Whatever. You might convince yourself that's not what you "meant" or how it "should" be interpreted but most people here get what you said quite clearly.

---

Yes, I think most people did get what I meant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
this whole situation would be irrelevant today, had Obama just been upfront from the beginning, and actually told us, himself, what he believes in. God forbid someone in the media ask him such a specific question as to avoid any ambiguity, but i digress...
i suppose i dont expect anymore from a liberal, unless its politically expedient of course

---

Quote:

---

Kirkules wrote:
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:18
I refuse to feel any guit about slavery. My ancestors came to this county only about a hundred years ago from a country that abolished the slave trade in 1776. Obama's family is much more likely to have been involve with the slave trade than mine. His African born father's family could have been rounding up slaves from other tribes for foreign sale for a hundred years after my ancestors abolished slavery.

It was a huge mistake for Obama to fall into Hillary's trap and bring race into the contest. His popularity among whites was partially due to the image he was projecting as a uniter of races. Now he's just another black dude running for President.

And Yes, Cantakesky you would be disqualified from being President in my book. If you were an adult when you attended the sexist church and continued to go even after their beliefs were known to you. Doesn't mean you aren't a good person, just means you don't have the leadership skills required to be President. A leader is someone that stands up for their beliefs even when they are not popular in the group they are currently in.

---

Quote:

---

..But I find the vitriol towards him and people like him amusing, especially since the likelihood of anybody posting something like this to be listing the horrible preachings of Falwel or Dobson almost nil, even while the both of them have been so closely associated with party politics for so long. .

---

Quote:

---

Dead serious. And what's all this talk about " use to " ? Obama still attends or is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. And technically speaking , Rev Wright keeps being described as " retired' . He was set to retire " officially " from the church at the end of the month, March 31st. Since all this fuss exploded, he's shipped himself off to Africa, on "sabbatical " , away from prying reporters

---

Quote:

---

No I didn’t miss that point either, but you however, have a knack for hypocrisy. First you dismiss the racism of one man because he supports a candidate you sympathize with while condemning another man who doesn’t support that candidate. And now you make personal attacks against me, while accusing me of showing contempt for those who disagree with me. When in fact, I have no contempt at all for you, other then your personal attacks of me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

Dead serious. And what's all this talk about " use to " ? Obama still attends or is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. And technically speaking , Rev Wright keeps being described as " retired' . He was set to retire " officially " from the church at the end of the month, March 31st. Since all this fuss exploded, he's shipped himself off to Africa, on "sabbatical " , away from prying reporters

---

Obama has every right to keep Rev Wright as his pastor, why should he denounce him, if that's the case he would have to denounce practically every black person in America, it would be extremely hypocritical and callous of him to do that when Rev Wright has not done anything wrong.

you might not like what he said or how he said it and its your right to disagree, but he didn't do anything wrong and he certainly hasn't said anything new!!

I'm happy to see that there is at least one politician out there who isn't a complete hypocrite and has some values and standards.


maybe you should heed Obama's words of wisdom, when he said this is all spectle and distraction and if your foolish enough to fall for it next election cycle it will be some other distraction, you do have a choice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
??? He has spoken at length about his Christian faith, his love of the United States, his commitment to community, etc. He wrote a book on what he believes called The Audacity of Hope.

---

Quote:

---

So, I don't think the problem is that he's never told us what he believes in. It troubles me no end that people take the soundbites they hear on the news at face value and assume that they can form informed opinions based upon them alone. We bitch constantly about the mainstream media and turn right around and form or oppinions based on their half-truths.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
maybe, rather then read a book to find out a presidential candidates real views, they could just address them up front, especially in light of a media circus event such as this.

---

Quote:

---

maybe im a bit of a purest, and skeptic, but i have a hard time reconciling socialist principles, with the bible, since the two are antithetical to each other in there truest forms.

---

Quote:

---

have you taken a glance at Obamas policies? i dont believe we are out of line in asking for some clarification

---

Quote:

---

actually, his race is only an issue to the democrats, since they nominated the guy!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:


now either you don't know anything about the history of your own country, or your trying to be ignorant on purpose!!

which is it?

---

Quote:

---

I am not an American, and I know the history of my country, (well a good part of it seeing as where I was born can show human habitation since at least the ice age.)

So either you are one of those people that thinks that only Americans have anything important to say, or you simply forget that this is an international forum.

Which is it?

---

Quote:

---

Dude, I could give a fuck if Obama worshipped the devil hisself, I care if the man can do the job he's applyin for and truthfully I don't think he's up to it cause he's too NICE.

Ain't that a shame ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

I am not an American, and I know the history of my country, (well a good part of it seeing as where I was born can show human habitation since at least the ice age.)

So either you are one of those people that thinks that only Americans have anything important to say, or you simply forget that this is an international forum.

Which is it?

---

I'm an American and we are talking about America not Rome, your whole post was completely assine. I should have known from that post that your not american know very little about our history...it was pretty obvious from your post that your clueless.

---

Quote:

---

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970

HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

H.B. 15090

PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY

[pg.] 129 TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

http://killtown.911review.org/aids.html

---

Quote:

---

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---

Quote:

---

One day you're gonna tell us how a preacher knows so much about crime.
-Jayne

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

I am not an American, and I know the history of my country, (well a good part of it seeing as where I was born can show human habitation since at least the ice age.)

So either you are one of those people that thinks that only Americans have anything important to say, or you simply forget that this is an international forum.

Which is it?

---

I'm an American and we are talking about America not Rome, your whole post was completely assine. I should have known from that post that your not american know very little about our history...it was pretty obvious from your post that your clueless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:



I'd be willing to bet Fletch knows a lot more American history than 90% of Obama's minions. I would sure love to see that debate.

Fletch, sorry to hear about the oppression of your people by the Romans. Have you ever considered seeking reparations.

---