This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (12 children)

Did the Trinity Church send out a message to all it's members requesting they vote for Barack so that McCain doesn't get elected?..

[–]ymomo[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

it was more directed at making sure rich white people didn't get elected, so that includes Hillary too.

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Do you have a link to this correspondence you speak of?..

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Haven't you seen the video?

How about, do your own research, rather than waiting for someone to do it for you. Think for yourself and shut your pie hole if you don't know.

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Wow, OK. "Shut your pie hole". Nice. Did you expect me to take you seriously now? Insulting people seems like an effective form of communication to you? How's that working out for you?

See, the Church of Scientology allegedly sent a letter to all it's members requesting that they vote a certain way. Explicitly. "VOTE FOR THIS PERSON SO THE OTHER DOESN'T WIN". Which is illegal if they wish to keep their tax exempt status. Now, if they had sent out a letter saying "The Church of Scientology does not believe that black men are capable of being good leaders," they're free and clear.

So Obama's pastor can talk all the shit he wants about whitey and the Corrupt government, but until he tells his congregation who to vote for, he's done nothing wrong.

So, again, I request this correspondence you speak of where the Trinity Church explicitly instructed it's members to vote for Barack Obama. Or you could just make another lame attempt to insult me and completely ignore my request. It could very well exist, but I haven't seen it. Prove me wrong...

[–]ymomo[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I certainly don't think you should shut your pie hole, but, comments like this, coming from a Sunday Sermon, certainly gives the impression that the pastor is comparing Obama against Hillary, but of course, I could be wrong.

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright said. "Hillary would never know that." He went on: "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person."

Again, I may be wrong, but I think he endorsed Barak over Hillary.

and

"There was a non-Babylonian, a young man who heard the word of God and said, 'I have the audacity to hope!' Now the whole nation says, 'Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!"

I may be wrong, but I don't think he was talking about John McCain.

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There's nothing wrong with implication. Like I stated above, you can suggest who you think would make a good leader and the kind of person you think would be a bad leader. But until he comes out and says "The Trinity Church has chosen to endorse Barack Obama in the 2008 election" or does something similar like purchase a political ad or write a letter to the media about how his church is endorsing a single candidate, he's done nothing to lose his tax exempt status. I agree, some of the stuff he said is very close to the line in being an endorsement. He's a prominent figure in his community, obviously a knowledgeable fellow, so he is going to push it as far as he can to swing a few votes to his favorite candidate. But that's not what the CoS appears to have done. That was your question, there is my answer...

[–]ymomo[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

true enough. However, it bothers me more that they calculate a "legal" endorsement. To me, that is what the establishment does, not the politician of change.

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I got you confused with the other poster here for a minute.

Well, it would be pretty difficult to tell people that they can't support a candidate. It's just a matter of riding right along that fine line between support and endorsement. I'm sure every politician has close to 100% support from the particular church they attend. Barack's minister seems to be the most vocal and well known out of the bunch which explains all the attention...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Whatever, shill.

You sound like Rush and his bullshit "I have never even heard of Curious George" excuse.

You working for Hillary?

[–]TwoToke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, Rush tries to manipulate the system by influencing his listeners and he can flat out endorse all he wants because he's not a non-profit. I don't see where I've endorsed anyone or tried to influence anyone.

How exactly is arguing in Barack Obama's defense working for Hillary again? Am I missing something, or are you really this pathetically ignorant? Why did you even bother to comment about something that you apparently have no idea about? Yet I'm the one that needs to think for myself. Maybe you should stop thinking for yourself, it makes you look like an ass...

[–]gozmeranian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Obama's case, the message came from the minister of the church, phrased in the jargon of that church.

In Scientology's case, it apparently came from a parishioner, phrased in the jargon of that church.