58 States

[Woody]

In a statement to the press .... Obama stated that he has been to 57 states and plans to go to one more in the near future. This statement was aired on Fox News.

Hmmm. Either he is too old and has forgotten .... or he is too young and hasn't learned. Which is it?

[jasd]

>>Hmmm. Either he is too old and has forgotten .... or he is too young and hasn't learned. Which is it?<<

Or...,

mebbe, he got it confused with the 57 States of Islam ("...the Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing the 57 Islamic states...," --The International Humanist and Ethical Union).

Or...,

mebbe, rather than POTUS - he had 'Imam Mahdi' on his mind.

Or..., then again,

mebbe, it was just a Freudian moment.

[Bravus]

...like your Freudian moment in pretending an American Christian is a Muslim because he's not white?

[jasd]

>>...like your Freudian moment...<<

Tch, tch, a 'tenor' without the singing? :-O

>>...he's not white?<<

What's color got to do with it? methinks, perceptions are oft' askewd

Don't talk about my ears. Don't talk about my name. Don't talk about my early madras. Don't talk about my racist gran'ma. Don't talk about my Reverend. Don't talk about my wife. Don't talk about..., etc.

"...because he's Black?" Don't think so...

The man may very well be the next POTUS, and we're to lay-off his politiks - and whatever else may bear upon the matter?

Don't think so...!

(By-the-way, speaking to a once and former Moderator..., what does the paraphrastic (1) denote in the 'Replies' column?)

[Bravus]

I think the (1) just means there has been one reply so far. Check the number now to test this theory.

OK, so if it wasn't his color, for what reason would you try to slur Obama as a Muslim[1] when he very clearly is not? He made a simple mistake (and that's mistake, not lie like Hillary's Big Bosnian Adventure), that had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and you managed to drag it in. Is it because his middle name is Hussein? Or is it simply the slur du jour?

The reason I mentioned his not being white was my assumption (which is just that, but I think perhaps has some grounds) that you would not have gone to that particular slur if his name had been James Knightsbridge and he had been of unalloyed British descent. Tell me my assumption is mistaken?

You're a smart guy, even if you're wrong about politics . But this is beneath you for all sorts of reasons.

[1] The fact that being a member of a particular religion is seen as a slur within America at the moment is another pathology for another day

[jasd]

>>I think the (1) just means there has been one reply so far. Check the number now to test this theory.<<

Nope. It currently displays 4, space, parenthesized (1)

>>OK, so if it wasn't his color, for what reason would you try to slur Obama as a Muslim[1]<<

My take is several-fold: you begin subjectively with an incorporated and incorrect supposition; all’s fair in love, war, and politics; and, are only ‘Blacks’ Muslim?; and, what would be your explanation for his use of the number “57”? (not ketchup, I hope!) As I alluded,

his remark bore the hallmark of Freudianism – and that is generous.

>>...when he very clearly is not?<<

What constitutes Xtianity? Do you suggest “Liberation Theology” bears affinity with Xtianity; namely, Jesus Christ’s teachings? How does “Black Liberation Theology” differ from a Marxist sort of “Liberation Theology”?

>>He made a simple mistake (and that's mistake, not lie like Hillary's Big Bosnian Adventure),<<

Why not a ’61’ mistake? or a ‘23’, or a ‘39’ mistake? “57” is “57” and is correspondingly relevant. That, as I suggest, puts to mind –

‘Freudian’ - or, mercy! worse.

If ‘bama’s ‘mistake’ was simply that – why do you not cut Clinton the same slack with her snippergate embellishment?

>>...that had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and you managed to drag it in.<<

Untrue, I did not simply “manage to drag it in”; I purposely employed its use as a

legitimate device. Umm, “57”?

>>Is it because his middle name is Hussein?<<

It is not. My post explicitly noted his “mistake” or Freudian use of the numeral "57" – and segued from there. The man, ‘mistaken’ or not on this point,

displays – whilst in pursuit of the highest Office in the land – once again, a certain lack of judiciousness. Its lack has, heretofore, been noted per the number of incidences lending themselves to formulating such a judgement.

>>Or is it simply the slur du jour?<<

You reside in Australia; I, in the USofA. It is I, as well Americans in general that will either benefit or suffer from this man’s ability to fit the Office. I understand that we represent different points on a ‘political’ spectrum. You characterize my observation as “slur”; I, on the other hand, characterize it as a legitimate observation. Such is the nature of the beast.

By the way, how does one expand, in the vernacular, “du jour” - to encompass a larger time frame? for example: encompassing four years, a term, or the likely time until disaster overtakes us entirely...

>>The reason I mentioned his not being white was my assumption (which is just that, but I think perhaps has some grounds)<<

Missed apprehension, entirely. I would not hesitate to vote for a person other than white – if I thought that he or she would fit the Office better than his or her rival candidate(s). Given, that objection would not obtain regards the question of experience, and that the criterion is one of the color Black,

I would, in a heartbeat, hope for the opportunity to cast a vote for Alan Keyes rather than for ‘bama – quicker than you could say Jack Robinson. It’s a matter of where one stands on political issues.

Were it criteria of Black plus experience, my vote would be cast for such as

Condoleeza Rice – even moreso than Colin Powell.

That said, I would, in a few years, also weigh racial demographics, which, one generation from now, show Whites as constituting no more than 9.8% of world population. To be satisfied with and/or condone such a thing in favor of a so-called ‘universalism’, is numbingly wrong-headed – for any number of reasons.

>>...that you would not have gone to that particular slur if his name had been James Knightsbridge and he had been of unalloyed British descent. Tell me my assumption is mistaken?<<

You might, with some thought, arrive at the correct assumption c’mon, a Britisher coming to mind - with such an association - at first blush!? Incidentally,

James Knightsbridge, Saint James, ...has quite a qualitative ring to it, doesn’t it? I like it.

>>You're a smart guy, even if you're wrong about politics.<<

“Smart”? coming from you, thanks. Wrong about my “politics”, not so ;-) I have the distinct advantage of viewing the current contretemps from the tall grass where dwell the Anarchists, which, in turn, provides me with perspective. Though, I might concede that Australia provides some distance, as well.

>>But this is beneath you for all sorts of reasons.<<

I politely disagree; rather, the question of ‘upness’ and ‘beneathness’ might actually lie with other than one making assumptions that are not quite spot-on.

>>[1] The fact that being a member of a particular religion is seen as a slur within America at the moment is another pathology for another day<<

You may be right if ‘opposition’ to “a member of...” is characterized as “slur” or “pathology”; that said, you’re wrong. I am not one who is particularly concerned with the nonsense, which masks itself as “Political Correctness”. Basic courtesy, yes – but not at the expense of common sense. I heartily eschew it and that which is passed-off as its peripherals. Political Correctness is just one more of Social(ists) attempts to mindf others.

[Bravus]

(a) non-white is not the same as black - and yes, in general many more non-whites than whites are Muslim

(2) why Freudian? It is an error, but what does it reveal of his psyche? And how would you be able to make any such diagnosis?

(γ) who defines Christianity? If we each are allowed, who should 'scape exclusion? Similar questions could perhaps be asked of Bush's version... but if he says he is Christian he is. A more relevant question is whether Liberation theology has anything in common with Islam...

(iv) Supposing for a moment the slip was Freudian: what maps it to Islam (besides your supposition)? There are any number of possible links, from the number of trolls killed by B'hrian Bloodaxe to Heinz' sauces.

(n+1) If my assumption was incorrect, I apologise. But I still have not seen from you *any* compelling reason for a jump to Islam from the number 57 with no other context. If it is a matter of projection, then as far as I can tell that's at your end of the pipe rather than Obama's.

[CyberGuy]

I think the press has been handling Obama with kids gloves because he is black. Every one is afraid of being accused of being racist. Sooner or later Obama will have to answer the hard political questions. Questions he has been avoiding. Obama keeps saying he is for change. But he does not define what that change entails. McCain will not be easy on Obama. He will have to face those questions sooner or later in the debates.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we need to give these guys a break. The Press did tis to Quayle and GW Bush and now it looks like they are starting on Obama.

[John317]

Obama has many things that he says people shouldn't be asking him about: his wife, his pastor (although he finally changed this), his middle name, the lapel pin of the American flag (which he is now wearing), his refusal to pledge allegience, his relationship with Bill Ayers, how he bought his house, how he .... the list goes on and on. We keep being told that certain subjects and questions are off limits...

There is no doubt that it is not good for America for us to elect anyone as President without knowing them really well. The hard questions must be asked and answered. So far they haven't been.

[John317]

You still hear jokes about Dan Quayle's mispelling of a word, more than a decade after it happened, on June 15, 1992. Wonder if anyone will still be talking about Obama's mistake 16 years from now. Or McCain's?

See http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/mccain-misspeaks-on-iran-al-qaeda/

[jasd]

...am responding in an untimely manner because I received a new ‘puter Friday as an early Father’s day gift from one of my exes. It has bells and whistles to keep me fat, happy, and dumber for the next coupla years; plus, it has a bunch! of USB ports. On the QT, depending on the software onboard of course, Black with bling (in all its guises) is beautiful. [/metaphoric Oyé!]

Reviewing my initial post, I am still persuaded that it is perceptually faultless. Further, I admit to a bit of incredulity to find the post eliciting a certain sort of energy – bein’s that the subject was ‘Freudian moment’ – constructed from an anteceding, verifiable, and relevant quote; together with a contextual, though hyperbolic, toss-off :-o

Anytheways, that said; Zest is good.

>>(a) non-white is not the same as black – and yes, in general many more non-whites than whites are Muslim<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I would not hesitate to vote for a person other than white – if I thought that he or she would fit the Office better than his or her rival candidate(s). [ed.]

I’m surmising that your above statement “(a)” refers to my own above framed quote, yes? If so, I submit that my statement is inclusive. Of course “inclusive” embraces Blacks; so, why would one need to be more compartmentalized? unless seeking to affirm the absolute uniqueness of a class of hyphenated-Americans.

>>(2) why Freudian? It is an error, but what does it reveal of his psyche? And how would you be able to make any such diagnosis?<< [ed.jasd]

Colloquial? Vernacular? Conversational? ...nah, just chatty.

But, of course, it is an error! – ipso..., “Freudian” :-)

His psyche? ...don’t know how a Freudian moment might unequivocally reveal anyone’s psyche. Frankly, given the many telling ‘bama moments sprouting as dragon’s teeth – I question, overall, both ‘bama’s character and judgement. (example: Dubya, helping State of Israel celebrate its 60th anniversary, was jumped on by a jump-up drawing attention to his very own self, “I’m here! I’m here! I’m important! Bush is dissin’ me!” {you know the what and wherefors I reference} Of course, McMedia played the enabler in that coup de theatre) Otherwise, other than the ‘incidentals’,

he seems like an okay kind of guy.

You credit me too much by half: I do not invest a whole lot of confidence in psychoanalysis; therefor, ...no diagnosis, just noted symptoms – and, of course, certain associated ‘errors’ inhering ;-)

[jasd]

>>(y) who defines Christianity? If we each are allowed, who should ‘scape exclusion? Similar questions could perhaps be asked of Bush’s version... but if he says he is Christian he is. A more relevant question is

whether Liberation theology has anything in common with Islam...<<

Christianity pretty much defines itself; in this case, pretty much, things Biblical versus things Marxist/Liberation Theology. (Does SDAism embrace Marxist concepts of social activism and/or ‘class struggle’, etc?)

Note:

“The definition of Jesus as black is crucial for christology...”

“The black Christ is he who threatens the structure of evil as seen in white society, rebelling against it, thereby becoming the embodiment of what the black community knows that it must become... “

“To be a disciple of the black Christ is to become black with him. Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ. . .”

“But what white America fails to realize is the explosive nature of the kingdom. Although its beginning is small, it will have far-reaching effects not only on the black community but on the white community as well. Now is the time to make decisions about loyalties, because soon it will be too late. Shall we or shall we not join the black revolutionary kingdom?”

“Any statement about Jesus today that fails to consider blackness as the decisive factor about his person is a denial of the New Testament message...”

A Black Theology of Liberation –James H. Cone

The above quotes are pulled from James H. Cone, whose writings were extolled by ‘bama’s mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright on Nat’l Television. The [Wright/‘bama] ‘association’ is one of 20+ years duration.

>>...Bush’s version...<<

Bush’s version? not even close.

Let me reiterate...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What constitutes Xtianity? Do you suggest “Liberation Theology” bears affinity with Xtianity; namely, Jesus Christ’s teachings? How does “Black Liberation Theology” differ from a Marxist sort of “Liberation Theology”?

and suggest that a facsimile Xtianity which embraces Black, Latin, or any other Liberation ‘Theology’ is that only; that is, a sort of Xtianity – a similitude, an affectation. Nevertheless, salvific? perhaps; however, consider:

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

Affinity between the Xtian and Liberation Theology? doesn’t appear to obtain.

>>...whether Liberation theology has anything in common with Islam?<<

Yes.

[jasd]

>>(iv) Supposing for a moment the slip was Freudian: what maps it to Islam (besides your supposition)?

There are any number of possible links, from the number of trolls killed by B’hrian Bloodaxe to Heinz’ sauces.<<

Umm, I could not find any synomy linking ‘bama’s Freudian “57 States” moment to such as Heinz pickles or ketchup, Roman numeral LVII, binary code 111001, elliptical galaxies, movie titles, etc... Well, except of course, the numeral 57 itself – numerical parallels, but nothing else associative. However, there are correlate markers that directly link to ‘bama’s “57 States”. Note again:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

mebbe, he got it confused with the 57 States of Islam ("...the Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing the 57 Islamic states...," --The International Humanist and Ethical Union)

Additionally, we might note the markers Wright, Farrakhan-slash-Nation of Islam, and, of course, there is the synomy “57 States” – 57 Islamic States of Islam under discussion, etc... These are sufficient markers to lead to the conclusion I reached – without the assist of either “projection” or “supposition”. That conclusion would be,

“Freudian moment”?

Given the exigencies of the times... one might even say ‘bama’s ‘moment’ goes beyond simple “error” and takes on, in fact, the attributes of indiscretion.

>>(n+1) If my assumption was incorrect, I apologise. But I still have not seen from you *any* compelling reason for a jump to Islam from the number 57 with no other context. If is a matter of projection, then as

far as I can tell that’s at your end of the pipe rather than Obama’s.<<

Ahh, Bravus, I wouldn’t presume upon your good will to either expect or accept an apology. Good grief, if ever an apology would be called-for vis-à-vis yourself and mine – it would, assuredly, be mine to give.

I suggest that you may apprehend the correlation from what I proffer, before you’ll find Wikipedia yielding one.

The context I constructed was self-contained. Yes, I agree, the

projection was mine. I own it. I am holding my end of the pipe.

‘bama is probably somewhere else – working on his purported and touted ‘articulateness’.

[lazarus]

>>

Bush’s version? not even close.

Cone's version is largely rhetoric but "Bush's version" has been seen time and time again in the history.

Weren't all the great men who argued argued against Wilberforce for all those years Christians? Their Christianity was not one of liberation but on of subjugation and oppression. That is clear. Whatever it take to sustain the empire.

Whatever it takes to protect American interests is the Bush's version.

Cone writes and speaks to a people who reject the white Christianity because it does no seem to match up to the Christianity of the Bible. If Jesus has to be black to win some to Jesus then so be it.

Jesus had to be painted as a white man to get the white folks to believe. They wouldn't have worshiped a dark skinned woolly haired Jesus after all he would have looked like one of their slaves.

[jasd]

>>Cone's version is largely rhetoric...<<

Agreed. However, rhetoric often engenders unremitting evil.

“Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves...” --Cone

It begins so innocently, doesn’t it?

>>...but "Bush's version" has been seen time and time again in the history.<<

Please, expand upon “Bush’s version”.

>>Weren't all the great men who argued argued against Wilberforce for all those years Christians?<<

Ah, Wilberforce. Great man. It was the censure of commercial interests in Europe,which lent impetus to the Abolition movement in America. Wilberforce’s endeavours traveled well.

>>Their Christianity was not one of liberation but on of subjugation and oppression. That is clear.<<

Indeed, there may exist a brief for that position. That said, I assume you’re acquainted with America’s War of Emancipation, what it sought to accomplish, and the costs incurred.

What I am saying is, Europe and America ended slavery. (Whilst today, it is Islam, East Europe and Russia, and certain of tribal Africa – that still practice slavery)

>>Whatever it take to sustain the empire.<<

Speaking of “sustaining” – isn’t slavery still being practiced by Muslims? and aren’t they seeking to establish an empire? Of course, the answer is in

the affirmative.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What constitutes Xtianity? Do you suggest “Liberation Theology” bears affinity with Xtianity; namely, Jesus Christ’s teachings? How does “Black Liberation Theology” differ from a Marxist sort of “Liberation Theology”?

>>Whatever it takes to protect American interests is the Bush's version.<<

Oh, okay – Bush’s version.

>>Cone writes and speaks to a people who reject the white Christianity because it does no seem to match up to the Christianity of the Bible. If Jesus has to be black to win some to Jesus then so be it.<<

And the looting, burning, destruction of ‘white’ property, etc? Say again, what colour is the Jesus Christ of looting, burning, etc?

>>Jesus had to be painted as a white man to get the white folks to believe. They wouldn't have worshiped a dark skinned woolly haired Jesus after all he would have looked like one of their slaves.<<

Wasn’t Jesus Christ a Jew. I think, as Egyptian mummies testify to their origins, so do the genetic origins of Jesus Christ testify of Him. Most every Xtian portrays Him handsome; Biblically, He seems to represent the opposite extreme.

I don’t have a problem with Jesus Christ being ugly; no more than I would were He Pink, Green, Yellow, Black, an alien Gray, short, tall, skinny, fat, etc. He is Gd – beyond my critical comment. That said,

Biblical honesty would, however, point to Him being awfully similar to today’s Sephardim, as opposed to the Oriental Jew (imho) – or else, one might wish to revisit the argument for evolution and the seeming velocity of genetic change.