[Masthead] Fair ~ 58°F  
High: 62°F ~ Low: 42°F
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2014

No place for racism, prejudice

Posted Friday, February 22, 2008, at 2:57 PM

The anger among many over the Bedford County School Board's decision to implement a stronger dress code is apparent.

But the issue seems to have brought out the worst in a few people, as seen on story comments.

Quick thoughts:

*Stop donating to school fund-raisers because of disagreement with the school board's actions and you only hurt the innocent.

If you think the school board victimized students through a dress code, getting revenge by withdrawing funds which help those students has the exact opposite effect from what you want. You only deny students needed supplies, etc. at individual schools.

You'll have much more of an effect at the next election (and don't read this as a specific call to action).

*Hispanic students, even if illegally here, can't help what their parents did. Educate those students and we may end up with English-speaking, taxpaying American citizens. Again, don't further victimize the innocent.

*And the rumor about Barack Obama taking his oath of office holding a copy of the Koran is just that -- a rumor. Multiple sources confirm Obama is a Christian who took his oath of office holding a Bible.

I often wonder if those spreading that "urban legend" do so out of political or racial motives.

You want to speak out in disagreement with the school board's decision and work toward having it rescinded? Congratulations. America needs more who care enough to become involved in the decision-making progress. And the "rich and powerful" arguably need to listen to the public more closely.

But let's leave hatred and racism -- which only hurt anyone's cause -- out of it and look forward, not backwards.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Ok, so I had read the story about the dress code and even the comments before reading this blog. I had to go back and check myself again and I still didn't see the reference to hispanic students, maybe I'm just over looking it. Also, I don't think the rumor about the Koran instead of the bible was racially motivated, I think it is one that comes from fear. Not fear that he is black, fear that he is infact a clost muslim (if that's possible) and may be plotting some type of takeover of the US and while you may think it's silly, some people (myself NOT included) believe it wholeheartedly. Is that racist? Nah, it's fear of the unknown.

As for not contributing to fund raising for the schools, well I don't just look for school kids to buy useless crap from but I do have a lot of nieces and nephews and even some young cousins that I will buy from even if it's the same box of candy or candle that doesn't smell only to be handed to the child when they come in. I'll be the first to admit though, it has nothing to do with the school. Usually the child selling it really really really wants to go to the skating rink with the rest of the class and has to sell x amount before that can happen.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 3:43 PM

Perhaps,we shouldn't be electing anyone we suspect of closet affiliations.

We should see someone being blatantly decent,rational,courageous and resourceful.

Would they all be sincere?

Probably not.

Most of us have a boring or malicious streak we try to conceal.

But,if we can't always get noble people to serve us,I'd prefer a villain who disguises himself by displaying good character and meeting the people's needs to saints that never speak or act in a way that reveals their wisdom and integrity.

Let's stop selecting people we hope can be good.

Let's see them demonstrate who they are in every moment of their lives.

We might not always like what we see but we're better off seeing the contents of these products for ourselves instead of trusting what's been put on the packaging.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 4:19 PM

"Most of us have a boring or malicious streak we try to conceal."

I don't conceal it, I nourish it.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 5:38 PM

So you would prefer a villian who disguises himself by displaying good character and meeting the people's needs to saints that never speak or act in a way that reveals their wisdom and integrity. You would have loved Hitler!

-- Posted by hillj225 on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 6:35 PM

Whom are you commenting to?

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 6:42 PM

I certainly wouldn't want somebody in our President's seat pretending to be something that they weren't and then being completely shocked when they showed their true colors once elected. Oh wait...we've had that for the past 7 years. I thought we were looking towards "change"

I think the America people are a forgiving lot as a whole. And would much rather know the truth about any candidate they are voting for other than just being told what they thought we needed to hear..of course that is just my opinion.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 7:03 PM

Thats the main reason I am not voting for Obama . . . I hardly know anything about what he stands for. He gives eloquent speeches and is very charismatic but yet he really hasnt stood for anything except that he is the candidate for "change".

Ok, I want to hear him say how he is going to change America. So far he is all talk with no plans for action. Wait, isnt that the typical politician?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 7:36 PM

Hillary for decades has had plans for health care. That was her pet peeve as first lady, so I can say that for her.

Regarding Obama, everything he has said, from the beginning of the campaign he has copied from Hillary. When confronted he stopped copying her and then started to copy other good orators. I find it funny he can't find the words to his own speech, how do we expect him to run the USA? And better yet, NOT copy Bush.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Feb 22, 2008, at 8:11 PM

Of course,I would have loved Hitler.

Part of loving folks is letting them know when they're acting in a way that's beneathe them.

If we can't have a sincerely good person acting intelligently on our behalf,then give us a villain who performs in a sane and beneficial manner and keeps his flaws to himself.

Even a good hypocrite or con artist has to have some awareness of what's proper in order to create a convincing facade.

If we get the right results as we go along,we might allow such an impaired person to "fake it till he makes it."

Or,give us a foe who shows his true colors from the get-go so we can keep him from the power he can't handle responsibly.

What we don't need are people who are so bland and non-committal that no one can catch them doing anything good or bad.

That includes the people-not just potential leaders.

Many despots such as Hitler succeeded as well as they did because too few people "outed" themselves as heroes.

They stayed silent and inactive when problems revealed themselves.

They continued to do so when more forceful people began dealing with those problems in troublesome ways.

They surrendered without ever joining the battle when the excesses crossed the line into abombination.

Forget being "safe" and popular.

Let's have candidates who have the gumption to be true to themselves and give us deeds to judge instead of rhetoric alone.

Let's have a populace that does what's right even if it's not easy or comfortable or pragmatic.

If we have to have people swallowing up their inner selves to fit in,let's have bad guys getting ulcers from acting sensibly and doing good deeds instead of people who know right from wrong abetting evil by their lack of participation in the battle against it.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sat, Feb 23, 2008, at 8:31 AM

Obama took his oath to office holding his OWN bible...[Holy Bible, NOT a Koran] As to the school board and racism things, I am a little confused...

The dress code policy is usless, no matter what race, gender, or size a student is.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Feb 23, 2008, at 7:26 PM

David,

Have you researched Obama's faith?

Are you familiar with the positions held by his religious affiliates?

Do you know who has close ties to his religion?

Are you aware that his religion is overtly racist?

Do you condone his affiliation with a church whose impetus is more toward Africa than the United States?

He speaks of great changes, what are they?

Don't we have the right to know what those changes would be, coming from a man whose religion is overtly racist?

Why should his religion's racism be acceptable while other people are cajoled for even berated over the most minute intimation of racism?

Do you know what this man's directives are?

-- Posted by dmcg on Sat, Feb 23, 2008, at 8:34 PM

dmcg

Have you researched Obama's faith? APPARENTLY YOU HAVEN'T...

Are you familiar with the positions held by his religious affiliates? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH YOUR OWN?

Do you know who has close ties to his religion? DO YOU KNOW WHO HAS CLOSE TIES TO YOURS?

Are you aware that his religion is overtly racist? ARE YOU AWARE THAT YOURS IS?

Do you condone his affiliation with a church whose impetus is more toward Africa than the United States? DO YOU CONDONE A CHURCH WHO'S EMPHASIS IS BASED ON REPUBLICAN IDEAS RATHER THAN WHATS BEST FOR THEIR OWN CHURCH?

He speaks of great changes, what are they? YOU KNOW THAT RESEARCH YOU ASKED DAVID ABOUT, START DOING SOME ON YOUR OWN.

Don't we have the right to know what those changes would be, coming from a man whose religion is overtly racist? OF COURSE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW...PEOPLE SAID THE SAME B/S ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. B/C THEY WERE AFRAID OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. THE STATUS QUO IS NO LONGER "COWBOY DIPLOMACY"...

Why should his religion's racism be acceptable while other people are cajoled for even berated over the most minute intimation of racism? OK, ONE MINUTE HE'S MUSLIM, THE NEXT MINUTE HIS CHURCH REPRESENTS AFRICA RATHER THAN AMERICA... PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHICH LIE TO USE, I GET TIRED OF DECIPHERING FOR YOU.

Do you know what this man's directives are? WE KNOW WHAT YOURS ARE, TO CONTINUE TO SPREAD LIES AND ALREADY DISPROVEN RUMORS, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Feb 23, 2008, at 10:40 PM

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate

(My problem with him is he is 73 years old)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Feb 24, 2008, at 11:29 AM

Yes, and my other problem... He'll take potential Democrat votes away and we'll end up with another Florida debacle!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Feb 24, 2008, at 8:54 PM

Darrick,

MY MY MY! I was unaware you had been inside my head. It seems you know all about me. That's a joke. I asked legitimate questions. If you want to know about O'bama's church go to their website. If you want to know about his so called "changes" I don't know where you will go, I have been unable to find his platform. I would love to know what he tinks about what we "should be."

How dare you imply I am spreading lies. I am asking questions. You sir are obviously a mind-reader, the only problem is, you are absolutely no good at it.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 5:15 PM

LOL... I am asking questions. You sir are obviously a mind-reader, the only problem is, you are absolutely no good at it.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 5:15 PM

I am a mind-reader, because you are no good at answering the same questions you asked in order to attempt to discredit someone. Those lies you speak of have been debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/oba...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 6:42 PM

Don't read between the lines Darrick and jump to conclusions. dmcg did not say anything about Obama being Muslim or the Quran. His reference to racism was based on the fact that his Christian church is racist. Than might be a good topic for debate but don't confuse the issues.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 7:26 PM

Go to the link and read point #4 and #5

Those are two things I answered for him. I didn't jump to any conclusions.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 7:36 PM

Those are two things he didn't ask. If I counted the points right #5 refers to the KKK and I seriously doubt any sane person thinks they are endorsing Obama and this wasn't part of dcmg's post. #4 brings in the Muslim issue again which dcmg did not even bring up and although I may not buy into the racism issue I certainly think their is enough there to at least spur debate.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 8:11 PM

darrick,

I'm not running for president of the United States. My private affiliations are none of your concern, just as yours are none of my business. I was asking about a presidential candidate's religious affiliation because I have read the information contained on the website owned and operated by the church of which he is a member. The website overtly declares the racist platform of which I was asking. I would be just as concerned about any candidate who was involved with any organization overtly espousing racism of any color.

As far as the provided link, I looked at it and I can assure you, I was not referring to any of those issues. I am not interested in lies, I want to know, as much as possible, the true nature of ANY candidate. We've been fooled before, we don't need to be again.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 9:34 PM

1)Have you researched Obama's faith?

2)Are you familiar with the positions held by his religious affiliates?

3)Do you know who has close ties to his religion?

4)Are you aware that his religion is overtly racist?

5)Do you condone his affiliation with a church whose impetus is more toward Africa than the United States?

6)He speaks of great changes, what are they?

7)Don't we have the right to know what those changes would be, coming from a man whose religion is overtly racist?

8)Why should his religion's racism be acceptable while other people are cajoled for even berated over the most minute intimation of racism?

9)Do you know what this man's directives are?

-- Posted by dmcg on Sat, Feb 23, 2008, at 8:34 PM

Those are two things he didn't ask. If I counted the points right #5 refers to the KKK and I seriously doubt any sane person thinks they are endorsing Obama and this wasn't part of dcmg's post. #4 brings in the Muslim issue again which dcmg did not even bring up and although I may not buy into the racism issue I certainly think their is enough there to at least spur debate.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 8:11 PM

Devan, let me break this down for you...

dmcg's questions 1-5, 7-8 all have to do with: Obama's "faith", "religion", "racism", and "more toward Africa than the U.S."

For question 1, I suppose he is implying either the African church, or the Muslim affiliation.. which was debunked.

For questions 2,3,4,5,7 and 8 [seems to be a pattern here] I direct you to bulletpoints 1-4, as you will AGAIN see that every point dmcg has made, was debunked...

Those bulletpoints are in the same link I provided you... AGAIN: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/oba...

Whether it's his "christian church" that is racist, or any "implication of faith" dmcg is wrong. So, am I justified by saying he is spreading lies, YES.

The "christian church" is not a racist organization: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chu...

As for questions 6 and 9, WHO KNOWS?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 9:42 PM

Since darrick is intent in saying I am spreading lies based on second hand readings, I would suggest to anyone wanting to know the truth about O'bama's religious affiliation's racial stance.....go to the horse's mouth.

http://www.tucc.org/

darrick, you must be closely related to Will Rogers, he too said he believed everything he read in the newspaper, however you seem to have at least advanced to snopes.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 10:06 PM

Tell me which denomination you belong to and I am sure I can dig up stories all day long about groups they reject, support, etc...

Our debates are getting nowhere, I agree to disagree.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 10:15 PM

I am not a member of ANY denomination, thank you. And as I said before, I am not under public scrutiny.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 10:31 PM

There you have it :) ttyl

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 11:04 PM

Do you find this a strange photo?

Not really saying it means anything I just found it unusual and even more strange that Obama agreed it was him but then said it was a smear campaign. How could it be both? It's either him or it's not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_o...

Obama says "Everybody knows that whether it's me or Senator Clinton or Bill Clinton that when you travel to other countries they ask you to try on traditional garb that you have been given as a gift," he said. "The notion that the Clinton campaign would be trying to circulate this as a negative on the same day that Senator Clinton was giving a speech about how we repair our relationships around the world is sad."

Condoleezza Rice and George Bush have been to Kenya many times and never once have I seen photos of them dressed like this, Have you?

Again I am not saying it means anything at all but I am not saying it don't either.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 11:39 PM

Notice how he has on khakis and a polo under that "traditional Kenyan attire"... He would definitely pass under the new dress code :)

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Feb 25, 2008, at 11:57 PM

naw his polo is the wrong color

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 12:00 AM

Hey darrick,

It amazes me how you have proven nothing and think you have won a debate.

-- Posted by dmcg on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 4:10 AM

Here's a picture for you Dianatn:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4449/...

Or how about this one:

http://letsgoeverywhere.files.wordpress....

OMG!! George Bush is secretly a Vietnamese!

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 7:39 AM

You know Richard it isn't the picture that is so strange to me it's the fact Obama says it's a smear campaign against him. Then accuses Hillary of posting this picture. If he was innocently just putting on these clothes then what's the problem. Why does Obama get so defensive about everything?

It seems to me Obama wants us to look at the garbage out there, there certainly is enough to look at maybe he wants us to just look at everything about him and say it is a smear.

Sometimes we really can't see the forest for the trees.

Of course that's just my opinion..

And as far as snopes.com goes that site really doesn't debunk anything it has no real facts just Obama's words. But if you chose to believe every word he says as gospel then I guess it does it for you.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 9:36 AM

When you post an innocent picture of someone and suggest it's part of some sinister conspiracy, then yes, it's a smear. So is using someone's middle name to stir up thoughts of terrorists and evil dictators like you did. It is fear mongering, and you are participating in it.

It is interesting that on the Mccain blog you were quick to point out that those were just rumors, and at the same time you're spreading this right wing conspiracy garbage.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:26 AM

Who posted this picture and proclaimed it as something sinister? I had never even seen nor heard of this picture until Obama himself claimed it was being sent out in email even though his staff failed to provide the actual email.

Obama is the one saying it is Hillary doing the smear campaign and she is far from being right wing anything.

If you think for one minute I was taking up for McCain you are sadly mistaken.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:44 AM

Are you suggesting that Obama started a smear campaign against himself? The Drudge Report first posted that picture, and claimed that they received it from the Clinton campaign.

As far as Hillary not being right wing, you're right, but maybe this shows how desperate she is to win the nomination.

I think this will definately backfire on her.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 1:26 PM

Richard, I am not suggesting anything at all but who is this hurting the most Hillary or Obama? Which one has the most to gain from this?

I am sorry but I do not believe for one minute Hillary's campaign did this but then I just can not buy into Obama being pure as the driven snow, either.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 1:53 PM

Hey darrick,

It amazes me how you have proven nothing and think you have won a debate.

-- Posted by dmcg on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 4:10 AM

-----Exactly what did you prove?

It is interesting that on the Mccain blog you were quick to point out that those were just rumors, and at the same time you're spreading this right wing conspiracy garbage.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at

-----AMEN!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 6:31 PM

Obama is the one saying it is Hillary doing the smear campaign and she is far from being right wing anything.-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:44 AM

Diana, I just don't get why the only time you believe what OBAMA says is when it is a negative attack on Hillary, why can't you believe OBAMA when he defends himself? It's a walking contradiction.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 6:39 PM

No darrick OBAMA is a walking contradiction. Just because he is a Democrat does not make him the right Democrat.

OBAMA is doing and saying whatever benefits OBAMA.

Have you actually read either one of his books? "Dreams from my Father" or "The Audacity of Hope" I suspect most Americans haven't read either or even have a clue about the contents.

If you haven't read them then please do.

These are his words, do you believe them?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 6:59 PM

Actually I am reading "Audacity Of Hope"... Ok, I like Obama and Hillary... But NO politician that has a chance to win in 2008, has escaped "saying and doing what benefits them".

My point is this, if you don't believe ANYTHING he says, then don't use ANYTHING from HIS campaign as a basis for the attacks on Hillary. It's ok to still believe he is out to take over America [which isn't going to happen since we elect President's, not Kings] but don't selectively choose which literature his camp produces. I just find it ironic that you say to hold of judgement about McCain, etc etc etc, but you leap to conclusions about someone with a distinctly different middle and last name, among other attributes.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 7:26 PM

But just like last time, this will get NOWHERE. You obviously have not budged from your presumptions, and I have not budged from mine. Let's move on to uniting the Democratic party, rather than finding everything to divide us.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 7:28 PM

That's fine darrick we will just have a agree to disagree.

I just have a problem knowing which version of truth Obama wishes for us to believe the version in Dreams of my Father and The Audacity of Hope or the one he is spoon feeding us now. Because there is a contrast of differences.

But please do continue reading and make your own judgement but be sure to read Dreams of my Father, also.

Oh and BTW I never once said or even thought Obama was coming in to take over America.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 7:53 PM

I said it's ok to "believe" it, not "say" it... LOL. You won't have to worry about which version of the truth to believe if you simply don't use anything he says as a defense.

But, have a good one. I have procrastinated long enough with my homework, not to mention studying for two tests :(

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 8:00 PM

darrick,

I did not set out to prove anything, I was simply asking questions based on what little I have been able to find out about the real man. I just don't understand how someone with ties to an overtly racist church (by their own admission, not snopes) has gotten this far in a national election. If the shoe were on the other foot, you better beleive there would be a massive outcry.

BTW does anyone have knowledge about whether or not it is even constitutional for McCain to be considered for the presidency, since he was not born on US soil. The constitution specifies that as a criteria, and no, ships at sea, military bases abroad, consulates, etc. do not apply to the specifics of the amendment. Why is the media not talking about this?

-- Posted by dmcg on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 11:14 PM

That is an interesting question, dmcg.

The language used in the constitution is that the president must be a "natural born citizen", but the Supreme Court has never determined exactly what that means.

That could definately become an issue if Mccain wins the election, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone challenged it in court. However, in my opinion, I think the court would probably decide in his favor, considering he was born to an active military member who was sent outside the country by our government.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 3:24 AM

I did not set out to prove anything, I was simply asking questions based on what little I have been able to find out about the real man. I just don't understand how someone with ties to an overtly racist church (by their own admission, not snopes) has gotten this far in a national election. If the shoe were on the other foot, you better beleive there would be a massive outcry.

-- Posted by dmcg on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 11:14 PM

Explain to me how Obama himself is a racist. In nearly every primary/caucus he has won MORE votes than ALL Republicans combined. I think your concern is overstated and without merit, because a majority of those who vote for him are white. The purpose of voting for a president doesn't come from what his church thinks and his churches dreams, they come from the individual themselves...

As for McCain, interesting thought. He just looks so stiff and rehearsed that I don't have a clue what he's for/against. I will look into the "natural born citizen issue"...

I didn't set out to prove a point either, just reversed the questions to you and others, to see if they could answer their own questions before expecting someone else to answer as well. I for one can tell you right now, just b/c I attend a certain church within a certain denomination does NOT mean I believe everything they do.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 5:19 PM

It would say something if you hadn't worked from within or visibly adhered to a higher standard than any wrong-headed ideas your church,school,club,family,party or workplace might advocate.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 8:53 PM

When I set myself within the confines of a society that openly avows a particular point of view, am I not to be held to that society's standard? True, many are involved in organizations whose hidden agendas may be unknown or unaccepted by the individual, but, when a society or chruch overtly and unapologetically avows something, then how can one assume that an individual memeber does not agree with the teaching or philosophy? If you or anyone else is a memeber of a sect holding divergent philosophies from your own then you are not in agreement with the institution. You are left with only three choices:

1. Get out of the institution

2. Try and change the institution's philosophy, or

3. Stay in the institution and remain hypocritical concerning its teachings.

This third solution seems untenable does it not? Particularly for a national figure who is seeking to be a main part of the governance of a great nation.

-- Posted by dmcg on Fri, Feb 29, 2008, at 6:48 AM

Blah Blah Blah

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Fri, Feb 29, 2008, at 5:14 PM

OK, dmcg lets talk about this church. Where on this website does this church claim to be "SUPERIOR" to all other churches, or "SUPERIOR" to any paticular race(s). Where on this website does it say they "HATE" other churches or "HATE" other races. Where on this website do they say they are going to "KILL OR HURT OR HANG OR TORTURE" you or anybody else. Where on this website do they say they are a "MUSLIM NATION". I have not read that on there website. I do not know what he preaches. I live here in Shelbyville Tn. and not Chicago. But from what I have read on the website, I do not see anything that saids, superior or hate toward others. Now lets take the statement "Unashameably Black", Are you ashamed of your color or race? Well they are not. "Unapologetically Christian" Do you feel a need to apologize for your religion? Well the do not.

What do you know about Black History, or Africa? What do you know about their culture? What do you know of how African-Americans were treated in churches of the past? Their was a time period that was marked by man's intolerance of his fellow man, based on the color of his skin. It was a time of slavery, oppression and the dehumanization of people of African descent and many of these un-Christian practices were brought into the church.

African-Americans branched out to their own churches where they were more acceptable to their "Sisters and Brothers IN CHRIST". You hear and learn alot about American History even in school. But you don't hear alot about Black History or African history. What do you know? Alot of African Americans do not know alot about Black history or Afica, and they are of African Descent. So don't go around saying this church is racist because it is recognizing its African History and culture. If this church is preaching Hatred, then by all means you tell it, if not don't start no mess, and it want be no mess.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Feb 29, 2008, at 10:15 PM

If you substitute "white" every time their website uses the word "black", I guarantee you, point blank, it would be called racist and someone would be crying foul. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

-- Posted by dmcg on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 12:18 AM

The month of February is Black History month, so you will hear some education on Black History then. Their is still alot untold, left out, or told wrong. dmcg, (Putting you in the shoes) what would you do if you had African and American descendents, and you lived in Africa (population majority african). Teaching and learning of only Africa, and you heard of America, and a few things of its history once in a blue moon.

What if the school you go to was mostly Africans and all you hear and learn was of Africa, what if the church you went to frowned on you and made you feel second class, and not let you take part in worship like the rest of the Africans. What if as a child, you and your American ancestors were told you can not have the same rights as the Africans. That you were to stay in the back and not be seen or heard. Your self esteem of who you are can be brought down to a low esteem. You will feel cut off spiritually, not being able to worship in church like the Africans.

So now your spiritual beliefs may be the same toward your religion but it would include you as who you are, and that God loves who you are, and that you are special in Gods eyes. You will want to seperate from this type of hate, and be among true christians, that love their brothers and sisters in Christ. And your motto may even come out very similar to this church; not as a racist point of veiw; but to say that you are not ashamed of who you are or what you believe in.

That is what I am getting from this website; As I said before I have never been to this church to actually know what they are preaching and teaching. But I believe it is more of teaching self worth, building self esteem of who they are, and that they are not second class but equal, that black is not ugly its beautiful, and that they don't have to settle for a lesser paying job, strive for better education, training experience, better jobs etc. When your spirits are low, and problems arise; the church is usually the place you go to, to be uplifted. I believe they do teach the word of God, and that they are christians, but I believe they also include their Afican heritage in their christianity.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM

I believe they do teach the word of God, and that they are christians, but I believe they also include their Afican heritage in their christianity.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM

Good comments. This and the previous one. As I posted earlier I believe that of all the spurious information that has been published about Obama this is the one that really needs to be debated. Not necessarily because there is any reason to disqualify him from being President of our country, but simply because it is one that has the most substance - racism (white or black) is not a good thing. I have studied Black History and so I do understand some of the points you made. However, I understand them only as an observer not as an "experiencer". I think the person with the experience has more credence when it comes to this debate. From the observer's perspective I still find it unfair for "whites" to cry racism when African Americans proclaim their heritage and try to preserve their culture. After all we were the ones that almost destroyed it.

As far as the preaching style and content of the pastor at Obama's church, that gets into religion and as most know that is not a test for holding the office. The one thing that has bothered me was the invitation for Louis Farrakhan to speak at the church. I do think that was a mistake and I do believe that Obama has made his public his denouncement of Farrakhan's support.

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 7:56 AM

I believe they do teach the word of God, and that they are christians, but I believe they also include their Afican heritage in their christianity.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 12:56 AM

Good comments. This and the previous one. As I posted earlier I believe that of all the spurious information that has been published about Obama this is the one that really needs to be debated. Not necessarily because there is any reason to disqualify him from being President of our country, but simply because it is one that has the most substance - racism (white or black) is not a good thing. I have studied Black History and so I do understand some of the points you made. However, I understand them only as an observer not as an "experiencer". I think the person with the experience has more credence when it comes to this debate. From the observer's perspective I still find it unfair for "whites" to cry racism when African Americans proclaim their heritage and try to preserve their culture. After all we were the ones that almost destroyed it.

As far as the preaching style and content of the pastor at Obama's church, that gets into religion and as most know that is not a test for holding the office. The one thing that has bothered me was the invitation for Louis Farrakhan to speak at the church. I do think that was a mistake and I do believe that Obama has made his public his denouncement of Farrakhan's support.

For an interesting discussion of this topic: http://www.alternet.org/election08/78185...

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 7:57 AM

See the second (duplicate) post for a link discussing the Farrakhan issue.

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 8:00 AM

I can honestly say Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago does seem to be racist by many of the public statements he has made in the past. Obama seems to take up for Rev Wright when ask about these statements saying he is a child of the 60's.

Rev Wright made this statement about 9/11 during a sermon at his church and it was also printed in his online magazine.

On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that ''people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.''

This is what Rev Wright has to say about Natalee Holloway's disappearance:

Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months.

Barack Obama did not say these things but his church's minister believes these things and preaches these things at Obama's church. Obama refers to Rev Wright as his mentor, his friend and a great leader in his book Audacity of Hope: which the title of this book was actually one of Rev Wright's titles for a sermon.

Barack Obama also talks about his white mother in Dreams of my Father he says he didn't tell people about his white mother as he was growing up because it was to hard for them to accept him as a mixed child.

The statements made by Rev Wright certainly has racial overtones: and if Obama does not agree with these statements then he should have denouned them long ago when they were made, don't wait until you are ask about something that will effect the election to say you don't agree (which actually Obama has not said he doesn't agree he just makes excuses for Rev Wright statements)

Now does this actually prove Obama is a Racist...No it doesn't but it does say without a doubt his church certainly has Racial Overtones preached to them.

Then the Farrakhan issue comes up "what are people suppose to believe?" When Obama feels he shouldn't have to speak about any of this?

I can bet you if Hillary's church supported the KKK she would have been ask long ago to explain her connection to a church that supported them.

This is all I intend to say about this subject. Call me a racist if you must I am ok with that. But surely you have a computer in front of you or you wouldn't be reading this now. Search for the answers yourself it's all there in black and white. Don't read what people say in blogs those are opinions.Just don't pick and choose which parts of Obama's life you choose to believe. That is the same as picking and chosing which parts of the Bible you wish to believe.

If you see nothing wrong with Rev Wright's way of preaching that's ok too that is your right to feel that way as it is mine.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 10:26 AM

Don't read what people say in blogs those are opinions.Just don't pick and choose which parts of Obama's life you choose to believe. That is the same as picking and chosing which parts of the Bible you wish to believe.-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 10:26 AM

Hmm, so in other words, don't read any of what you said? LOL... Again, blah blah blah!

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 5:02 PM

That's right don't believe this blog or my blog or even your neighbor's blog. All I am saying is there are better sources of info besides a blog.

A Good place to start is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wr...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 5:33 PM

This is all I intend to say about this subject. Call me a racist if you must I am ok with that.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 10:26 AM

Dianatn, I do not think you are a racist, nor do I think anyone else that questions this churches belief is a racist either; that is a normal thing to do. I do not want Anyone that is racist against other races to be president that caters to only his race.

I admit I do not like some of the wording that is used on the website, but I can understand what is being expressed, and I do not believe it is meant to be racist. My coments were based on the website specifically, like I said before, I do not know what is actually preached or taught there, I have never been their, nor can I believe what everyone saids. The website if it belongs to this church, speaks of its African heritage, and has a desire to support, and encourage its members to support African-Americans to better themselves. IMO that is something good.

I will say I would not approve of my church having Louis Farrakhan, as a speaker. He may have been known to blacks as someone who stood up against the mistreatment of blacks, but he is a racist toward whites. I know that oppressed people can also manifest into people of hate. Perhaps this church is overlooking the fact that this is a man of hate. Churches do make mistakes, And every member does not always agree with what other members decide to do, And sometimes preachers can say, and do things that members of the congregation does not approve of either.

I am not trying to make excuses for this, like I said I would not approve of this (Farrakhan). But like devan said Obama has made public a denouncement of Farrakhans support.

(The statements made by Rev Wright certainly has racial overtones Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 10:26 AM)

I can feel some of that, in some of the statements you have posted from the wikipedia, on the 9/11, that is foolishly uncalled for, and pisses me off.

I had questionable thoughts of Obama as well of possibly being muslim (Undercover), It was his name, and the fact that they said his father was suppose to be muslim; and the influx of refugees which some are muslim had a play in it as well. I do not mean to feel that way, but I did. I have read of his upbringing, and what he has done since being an adult, and do not believe that he is muslim, but I do feel he knows muslims.

I also wondered if he could possibly be the anti-Christ coming for the 4 year term "2012". But I kind of believe that Bush took the cake of being the anti-Christ, Satan comes to "Lie, Steal, Kill, and Destroy" meaning Lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Steal our money with oil, Killed many innocent people with this war in Iraq, and the NON-quick rescue of Katrina people, and Destroyed so many peoples lives and ways of living. I believe the damage is already done, even if we pull out of Iraq, their is still going to be a Holy War, because "EVIL" put us their.

I do not believe Obama, thinks like Rev. Wright, and is possibly offended by some of the statements that he has said. I have friends and associates, that say and do things that I do not approve of, and have had ministers that I did not approve of some things about them too.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 10:03 PM

I have no problem what so ever with anyone being proud of their heritage.

I could even get past Obama's church having racial overtones if Obama would at least talk about it in public or say he does not agree with Rev Wright but by just saying it is nothing or not saying anything at all bothers me the most. Somehow I get the feeling he is hiding something by not talking about it and it might just be me but that not only bothers me but it scares me.I am not sure I would go as far as calling him the anti Christ.

I'll be the first to admit he talks a good game and he seems to be a real likeable person. If he would just be more up front with us about his church and his past, I think he would win by a landslide. I personally don't think any of us should have to search for answers about someone who is running for President of the United States those answers should be given by the candidate, without having to pull them from him like a bad tooth.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Mar 1, 2008, at 11:43 PM

I agree totally, that was what made me leary of him, not knowing alot about his past, seems like he came from out of nowhere, then his name and all the other things that have been coming up. But I do know people can take things about someone, and make them look really bad, and have you thinking things about this person that is not really true. I believe Obama is afraid to speak out against this minister because he has befriended him, I believe he enjoys the bond the church has, but I believe he is afraid of offending some of the members if he addresses the character of this minister and some of his statements. So instead he avoids them and hopes he does not have to address it. I have noticed that the "Mission" section on the website sounds more appropriate than the "About" section on the website. I wonder if the about section was the words of the minister, and the Mission section by other members of the church. They are very different in the overtone, but have the similar meanings; ones more professionally appropriate than the other.

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm

I don't think I actually read this but moreless heard it from somewhere, that their would be a man that would come from the east/west not sure which one they said now, but that he would get great power, the people loved him and trusted him, and then he turned on them and people where a number or something like that, that they could not buy or sell with out this number, and that any one that would not do as he asks will be killed.

That you should calculate his name, the man is a number and his number is 666.

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sun, Mar 2, 2008, at 1:57 PM

Yea I have read that about Bush before but I am not sure he is smart enough to be the anti-Christ. :>)

I also read somewhere and I'll see if I can find it to post you a link where it said Trinity Church of Christ had "toned" down their website a few months ago because so many people were going to the site because of Obama's involvement with them. Honestly I don't know if that is true or not but I have heard that several times since I first read the story.

I also know The Black Panthers had Obama's picture posted on their website (I saw that myself) but amazingly enough his picture has been removed from their site, recently.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Mar 2, 2008, at 7:22 PM

Well if they have tone it down some then that's good. Sometimes what somebody think is ok to them may, be offensive or bothersome to others. Wording is very important, so let me say to "dmcg", I would like to apologize to you for a statement I said to you.

(If this church is preaching Hatred, then by all means you tell it, if not don't start no mess, and it want be no mess.)

That was wrong, I was out of line for that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I have to respect that.

He will probably get alot of support from black activist, they usually try to fight for equal rights for jobs, schools, and even presidents. They may not all be good for him but they will definately want to support him.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sun, Mar 2, 2008, at 8:08 PM

So you think it is good that they have toned down their image?

Sounds like the true mark of a hypocrite to me. They say, "oh, look, our message might be offensive to voters, let's not let them know what we REALLY stand for."

Is that what we really want from a Presidential candidate?

Haven't we been deceived enough already?

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 6:52 AM

dmcg, I said they have two sections on the website, the one on "Mission", I said the wording sounds better than the one on "About"; I said they have different overtones, but similar meaning. They have not changed nothing for you to call them a hypocrite. And what the church officials do with the church business, has absolutely nothing to do with a Presidential canidate.

As for what they stand for, "Trinity United Church of Christ", what is the congregation "Majority African-American"

Same as before nothings changed.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 12:21 PM

All I know is the last time we elected someone soley on their "beliefs" we got the exact opposite... So let's not elect a leader based on fallacies or even truths concerning their preferred religion. There is a reason that is never mentioned in the Constitution as a criteria for becoming a President.

dmcg, I don't believe everything Obama says, just like I don't believe everything that ANY of the candidates say. But if you want to fault a man, do it not because of inner convictions of religion, fault him on his OWN, INDIVIDUAL actions. We can not elect people based on groups or social clubs in which they belonged to. No different, than not electing Bush based soley on the 'Skull and Bones' society.

After all, we aren't electing a Church we are electing an individual...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 4:32 PM

darrick_04, I agree. They are all going to say things that make them look good. So I would like to hear a list of things that each of the remaining canidates have done in their past that was beneficial to our country. This will give a pretty good Idea of who is actually concerned about the welfare of this country, and not just "Trying to be president". Any body know some things to bring up? I'll have to do some searching too.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 6:26 PM

Quite honestly I could care less what any of them have done in their past. What I am concerned with is what they are doing TODAY and what they plan on doing for the FUTURE of America. Don't preach change to me unless you plan on telling me what it is you are going to change.

here is one of the links that has a discussion on Trinity's website changes please note this article started in 2006

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illino...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 7:35 PM

Oh yeah I meant to address darrick's statement about not judging an individual on the groups or social clubs in which they belonged to

I will have to disagree with you on this one. Even in everyday life we are judged on the people we have as friends and the groups we belong to.. and you do also.

You can not tell me that you judge the people who belong to the VFW the same way you do members of the KKK or the Masons and the Pagans. They are all groups of people but they believe a totally different set of values and if you didn't believe their values then you would not be a member of their organization.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 8:05 PM

Thank you Diainatn,

I couldn't agree more. That's all I was saying, I'm not usually interested in a candidate's religion. But, when a candidate is a member of a group that promotes a specific race........

In their mission statement, why can't they use the term "American" instead of black?

When people speak of past oppression I say, "what group hasn't been oppressed at some point in history?" I'm all for equality, not favoritism based on race, creed or religion; mine, yours or any one else's, especially our president's.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 8:33 PM

Dianatn, I have looked at the link you posted, and "Could not" find what the change was you are trying to point out to me. On the link he had posted their Black value system, it is the same thing that is on their website today.? "No change".

As for judging people for being in groups or clubs, What group are you referring too, this is a church, just like other people have a church they go to. The congregation to this church is majority African American; What congregation is your church majority? Are you saying because this is a majority black church he should not attend it? Because that is the way it is coming off. Wether you want to accept it or not Obama is African-American, and he attends an African American church just like all the other presidential candidates attend a church that is prodominantly their race.

Now do you have a problem with black people supporting other black people in education, spiritual and emotional guidance, job trainings, and job findings? Do you have a problem with Black people learning about Africa, Africans, the African history and Black history? Why? What are you afraid of? These people have not made a threat to you, nor any other person, church, religion, groups, or race. They are streghthening their knowlege in their African Heritage. Would you like to be educated in the African Heritage? I do not see anything on the website that said "ONLY BLACKS CAN ATTEND THIS CHURCH" "ONLY PURE BLOOD BLACKS CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CHURCH" As a matter of fact their have been white people that attended this church. I have not seen anywhere online where this church refused another race from entering its doors; But since you brought up KKK, I have seen and heard many HATE, RACIST, THREATS, TORTUE, ETC, ETC, ETC, about the KKK, and Children in schools, and Adults hanging Nooses on peoples doors on the news, and guess what? "They are ALL WHITE" not African Americans, and you know what else, "THEY HATE all races that are not white" They claim "SUPERIOR" of all races, No equality there... I garauntee you they will not hire a black person for a job, job training, or anything that can benefit the black person. And you know what it happens more often than you care to admit. That is why alot of the other minority people help support each other, Blacks tend to go their own way, some help each other and some could care less. They are a "MINORITY" people and minority people strive for support from one another.

Do you think it is racist that Mexicans shop, and eat at mexican stores and restaurants? probably so. Here is a Latino Christian support group, you would probably say they are being racist too.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...

Here is a Christian Asian support group, racist?

http://www.crcna.org/pages/stories_asian...

Majority jobs, education, schools, churches, organizations, etc. are ran by whites because their is a majority white population. You don't see the word white organization, 1. because it is not a minority race, and 2. Organizations that uses their race "white" as to define themselves in a title, or name of a group wether you like it or not are looked at as racist. Because the Hate,Threats to other races, and Superiority was CLAIMED, and DONE by white people, not Blacks, not mexicans, not latino, not asians, not jews, etc, etc, etc.

When you see organizations that say Asian, Chinese, Latino, African American, Italian, or Japanees here in America then it is because it is a "MINORITY" group. And unless you see, hear, read them saying Hate toward others, or violence, or others are not allowed to be their then you are not looking at a "RACIAL" situation like you are SO Desperately trying to make it, you are looking at a Minority support group. I have said all I'm going to say about this. The only thing you have proven to me, is that you are against blacks studying their African Heritage, and supporting their own race to better themselves. And because of this you want to call Obama as having racist values and intent. You said yourself, you don't care what he has done in the past for the country, you want to know what he is going to do for the future. "His change" But have you even researched what he plans to do for the future, "The Change" or are you still stuck on the past of his church??? I am not saying to elect him, I'm just calling you out on your statements of him being a racist. And that blacks supporting blacks is racist. It makes you look like what you accuse them of.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Mar 4, 2008, at 12:47 PM

Yes I have seen what Obama wants to change and it did not impress me what-so-ever.

I did not call Obama a racist but I did indeed call his church racist. If that bothers you, then so sorry.

I have yet to ever go eat at a Mexican Restaurant and them preach "The Mexican Value System" to me.. Have you?

I could care less if any of these people have racist support groups unless of course they happen to be running for President of the United States. A position which is "Suppose" to see all races as equal not just minority races.

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's usually a duck."

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Mar 4, 2008, at 1:25 PM

Quite honestly I could care less what any of them have done in their past. What I am concerned with is what they are doing TODAY and what they plan on doing for the FUTURE of America.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 7:35 PM

That's funny, since you have been going through Obama's past with a fine tooth comb looking for things to disagree with. From his ancestors, his childhood, to his religious background. I think maybe you are trying to hard to find something that's not there.

What do you dislike about his proposed health care plan, economic policy, foreign policy, education? You know, things that actually matter. That's what we all should be talking about, not all of this nonsense about someone's preacher.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Mar 4, 2008, at 2:41 PM

No Richard I don't have to go through Obama's past with a fine tooth comb but I do read it with open eyes.

As far as Obama's health care plan it leaves out 15 million Americans.

He is also holding hands with Canada on NAFTA even though he says he isn't "wink wink" to Canada. He said this was just political rhetoric.

How Obama has voted in the past should show you what he will do for our Future Have you even read any of that??

he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

And just wait until all the info comes out about Obama's slumlord partner Rezko.

I could go on and on but I am not because Obama said himself it's all just political rhetoric.

Hmmm seems Obama says one thing then votes for something entirely different don't it!!!

But yet I am suppose to be believe every word that come from his mouth...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM

Quite honestly I could care less what any of them have done in their past. What I am concerned with is what they are doing TODAY and what they plan on doing for the FUTURE of America.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Mar 3, 2008, at 7:35 PM

If you truly believed ANY of what you posted here, then you can say THIS about yourself "Hmmm seems Obama says one thing then votes for something entirely different don't it!!!" Except, Diana says one thing and posts something ENTIRELY different.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 5:11 PM

nascarfanatic

Whatever, nascar Richard ask the question I answered him, period. How Obama or even Hillary votes on issues does effect your future. Whether you wish to believe it or not is your choice.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 5:28 PM

I never said it DIDN'T matter. YOU said "Quite honestly I could care less what any of them have done in their past. What I am concerned with is what they are doing TODAY and what they plan on doing for the FUTURE of America." Or do I need to say it again?

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 6:28 PM

"As far as Obama's health care plan it leaves out 15 million Americans."

Obama and Clinton both support universal healthcare for all Americans. The 15 million is a misleading statistic, and Hillary has never explained where that figure comes from. An article from the New Republic? Hardly a credible source. Debating the differences in the two plans seems a little premature, anyway, considering we don't have a national healthcare plan at all yet. Let's not forget that Hillary failed to pass universal healthcare the first time around, even with a democratic President and a democratic controlled Congress.

"He is also holding hands with Canada on NAFTA even though he says he isn't "wink wink" to Canada. He said this was just political rhetoric."

This is all based on something that an Obama aide supposedly said. There is no real evidence to support this. Obama has consistently opposed NAFTA.

As far as the "accidental" votes, he is not the first person who has claimed to have done that. I guess its possible that he could have made a mistake 6 times out of 4000 votes. Anyway, its not like he voted to start a war and then claimed that he didn't know what he was voting for. That was Hillary.

"He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide."

I know you are pro-choice from the previous blogs, so I am suprised you even mentioned this. The fact is that Obama has a 100% pro choice record. The "live birth" bill you mentioned was part of a package and included other measures. Obama and many pro-choice supporters opposed the state bill , but supported the federal bill that was similar because the federal bill offered protection for Roe vs. Wade, and the state bill did not. The federal bill was passed.

"Hmmm seems Obama says one thing then votes for something entirely different don't it!!!"

You can take anyone's voting record and take certain votes out of context, and you can spin it anyway you want it to look.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Mar 6, 2008, at 3:55 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.