Barack Obama's Controversial Pastor Puts Church In Hot Water

[GaryC 7]

I'll give them due credit. They're great for Republicans.

And I will give CNN, MSNBC and the networks credit. They are good for dems.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The are better at it than any other news channel.

No - they really aren't.

Yes they really are.

There are plenty of media research organisations that say otherwise.

That isn't to say that any corporate network media is particularly great.

[GaryC 7]

The are better at it than any other news channel.

No - they really aren't.

Yes they really are.

There are plenty of media research organisations that say otherwise.

That isn't to say that any corporate network media is particularly great.

Sure, left leaning media research orgs. Fox just pizzes people off because they dare to give both sides of a story. Most would rather be spoon fed the liberal dribble that comes from the other news channels.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'll give them due credit. They're great for Republicans.

And I will give CNN, MSNBC and the networks credit. They are good for dems.

Lol Gary... ok.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The are better at it than any other news channel.

No - they really aren't.

Yes they really are.

There are plenty of media research organisations that say otherwise.

That isn't to say that any corporate network media is particularly great.

Sure, left leaning media research orgs. Fox just pizzes people off because they dare to give both sides of a story. Most would rather be spoon fed the liberal dribble that comes from the other news channels.

I don't think that's it, to be honest with you - though your statement does promote an idea that every story can be distilled down into two diametrically opposed interpretations of every story that reflect the partisan divide in the US.

It would also be inaccurate to suggest that media research organisations that criticise fox don't also criticise CNN, MSNC, or NPR. They do of course, but then you wouldn't know that. It would be inconvenient to your rationale.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Number 6

[Alex+R 0]

What's so 'out there' about anything that guy said? Everything he said about racism is true. Seriously, are people not aware of what goes on in black churches?

Edited March 13, 2008 by Alex+R

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's so 'out there' about anything that guy said? Everything he said about racism is true. Seriously, are people not aware of what goes on in black churches?

Well not here perhaps. But his support for Louis Farrakhan puts him on similar lines to Jerry Falwell, IMO.

I think a lot of US churches are too theatrical for their own good.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey Synthesis is coming soon...

These religious fanatics in Chicago (surely must be undercover muslims) will be discovered by the media pretty soon to actually be the 'gringo associates' for FARC, having the audacity to play on the white man's burden of guilt AND the white man's novel 'negro' friend, in order to accurately hide the 'fact' that the candidate has no substance and only wants the job to laugh at all of us. Plus somewhere there has to be the liberal commie part... can't forget that!

What's so 'out there' about anything that guy said? Everything he said about racism is true. Seriously, are people not aware of what goes on in black churches?

Well not here perhaps. But his support for Louis Farrakhan puts him on similar lines to Jerry Falwell, IMO.

I think a lot of US churches are too theatrical for their own good.

Actually it was the other way around. Farrakhan offered his support and O did not warm to it.

[GaryC 7]

What's so 'out there' about anything that guy said? Everything he said about racism is true. Seriously, are people not aware of what goes on in black churches?

Well not here perhaps. But his support for Louis Farrakhan puts him on similar lines to Jerry Falwell, IMO.

I think a lot of US churches are too theatrical for their own good.

If a white church said the same but opposing things about blacks and then backed a candidate don't you think it would raise eyebrows?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hey Synthesis is coming soon...

These religious fanatics in Chicago (surely must be undercover muslims) will be discovered by the media pretty soon to actually be the 'gringo associates' for FARC, having the audacity to play on the white man's burden of guilt AND the white man's novel 'negro' friend, in order to accurately hide the 'fact' that the candidate has no substance and only wants the job to laugh at all of us. Plus somewhere there has to be the liberal commie part... can't forget that!

It is pretty weird. Obama is being discredited for being a straw-man candidate with no experience, based apparently on his campaign messages alone. I wonder how much of that is simple ignorance - of people not actually bothering to find out what a candidate actually stands for, and filling the void with assumptions.

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

Oh... but maybe this is skewed by CNN's left leaning, liberal bias... lol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually it was the other way around. Farrakhan offered his support and O did not warm to it.

I mean't Wright - not Obama.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's so 'out there' about anything that guy said? Everything he said about racism is true. Seriously, are people not aware of what goes on in black churches?

Well not here perhaps. But his support for Louis Farrakhan puts him on similar lines to Jerry Falwell, IMO.

I think a lot of US churches are too theatrical for their own good.

If a white church said the same but opposing things about blacks and then backed a candidate don't you think it would raise eyebrows?

The white church wouldn't have cause to use the same arguments, would they?

Its one thing for a member of a repressed social/ethnic group to challenge social inequalities which have played a hand in their own repression - both past and present, another to do it as a member of a dominant group.

[Alex+R 0]

Hey Synthesis is coming soon...

These religious fanatics in Chicago (surely must be undercover muslims) will be discovered by the media pretty soon to actually be the 'gringo associates' for FARC, having the audacity to play on the white man's burden of guilt AND the white man's novel 'negro' friend, in order to accurately hide the 'fact' that the candidate has no substance and only wants the job to laugh at all of us. Plus somewhere there has to be the liberal commie part... can't forget that!

It is pretty weird. Obama is being discredited for being a straw-man candidate with no experience, based apparently on his campaign messages alone. I wonder how much of that is simple ignorance - of people not actually bothering to find out what a candidate actually stands for, and filling the void with assumptions.

Very true. I really like it when people say "I still have no idea what that man stands for" as a critique of the candidate himself. Last time I checked, platforms don't make great stump speeches. You can go google it and find out yourself. It's not Barack's fault you're lazy.

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

Oh... but maybe this is skewed by CNN's left leaning, liberal bias... lol.

bump... people can think for themselves. I hope.