Yuku free message boards

sjt9242 wrote:

---

For the record, OD, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, not Mr. Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Thanks - I try not to read it.

But no doubt when presented with the choice between McCain & Obama the Old Gray Lady will come down squarely in Obama's court and give him their endorsement.

FastCars wrote:

---

kmuell2 wrote:

---

This is the last time I will post on anything politics-related. One thing I will leave is a video of a McCain supporter many of you may know. He is a pastor who said things just as outrageous as a few things Jeremiah Wright has said. I wonder why there hasn't been an uproar over his statements, when Obama's pastor's statements could quite possibly lose him the election this fall.

http//youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&fmt=18

You must admit there is a rather HUGE difference between getting the endorsement of a man that you have met once or twice and never attended any of the services where his craziness was spouted and being a MEMBER of a congregation for 20 YEARS and defending what he has preached.

McCain has no control over who endorses him, nor does Obama. But Obama surely could have left the church of the raving racist and anti-semite after hearing some of Wright's anti American, white or Jewish rants.

---

---

In the process of changing churches myself.

Obama chose not to because he believed in what his pastor preached about.

Think about that folks, Obama obviously (by staying for two decades and contributing $25K last year) believes what was being said and wholeheartedly supports it. Leaving a church that you do not agree with ain't that hard to do!

"Black Liberation Theology" isn't the same Christianity that you or I know.

Look it up - do some research into exactly what the "Black Liberation Theology" the The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached (and preaches) is.

Bet it doesn't match up with your our understanding of Christianity!

Stunning, almost heretical op-ed piece in the NYT this morning:

Kennedy Talked; Khrushchev Triumphed.

An excerpt:

---

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency's - indeed one of the cold war's - most consequential: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy's special assistant, called those sentences "the distinctive note" of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama's campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel's Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America's adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy's legacy: "If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev."

But Kennedy's one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one's adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings - his Harvard thesis was titled "Appeasement at Munich" - he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.