Dolemite said:
So christians arent experts in Humanitarian needs?
Condi's Mandate For African-American Churches and Africa
- Thread starter Mello Mello
- Start date
So christians arent experts in Humanitarian needs?
actinanass said:
Some christians may be if they are. Christians are not humanitarians merely by their being christian.
The fact is the people selected for this were not qualified. In fact almost all of those involved on the christianity side have been forced to denounce the Bush administration since it has come out that they were only being used by Bush for political gain.
For a reference read the "Get me a fucking faith based thing"-Karl Rove thread.
Makkonnen said:
omg. I didn't think the hatred of Bush runs this deep. Anything he does, *good or bad* is bad. This is why I can't follow yall with this bullshit...
actinanass said:
What exactly did "He" do? or even try to do? He didn't do shit but stage a black minister publicity event on the same weekend as other black ministers to try to upstage them and what they were discussing and since that meeting he hasn't done shit.
The only bullshit around here is the crap you and Bush are running down.
What happen to separation of church and state?
I want my church and my politics to have nothing to do with each other.
So no thank you.
Keep the black church out my business.
___________________________________________________________________________
<img src="http://img12.imagepile.net/img12/282100-DrRice-S161-31-th.jpg">
Biography of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
"In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching."
You see how much one has to accomplish to become a Condi Rice.
Read more here http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
I want my church and my politics to have nothing to do with each other.
So no thank you.
Keep the black church out my business.
___________________________________________________________________________
<img src="http://img12.imagepile.net/img12/282100-DrRice-S161-31-th.jpg">
Biography of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
"In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching."
You see how much one has to accomplish to become a Condi Rice.
Read more here http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
Makkonnen said:
See thats the problem mak, you expect a president to do EVERYTHING. Do you want a dictatorship? On the other hand, it kinda sound like you a whiny ex girlfriend. Do you miss your Mr. Clinton that bad?
My point is this, the Bush Administration can only do as much as congress, senate, and the american people can allow them to do. Africa does not hold a threat to U.S. national interest. This is why the government will never fully help that region. This is why churches, and non-profit organizations are on the front line in the charity work. The US can help more when our economy flourishes. Its like this:
We all buy cars, GM returns profit, they take taxes out the profit, to gain more taxes back, gm gives to a charity, money goes to africa/other third world countries....ect.
If the government constantly help countries in Africa, why would the countries try to better themselves? Two things happen when you help someone to much. One, they become dependent. Two, they resent it, and rebel. This is why Bush can't go out and do what you want him to do mak..
<font size="5"><center>In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy</font size></center>
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: January 5, 2008
WASHINGTON — Dr. Jean W. Pape did not know what to expect in early January 2003, when he slipped away from his work treating AIDS patients in Haiti and flew to Washington for a secret meeting with President Bush.
Mr. Bush was considering devoting billions to combat global AIDS, a public health initiative unparalleled in size and scope. The deliberations had been tightly carried out; even the health secretary was left out early on. If President Bush was going to shock the world — and skeptical Republicans — with a huge expenditure of American cash to send expensive drugs overseas, he wanted it to be well spent.
“He said, ‘I will hold you accountable, because this is a big move, this is an important thing that I’ve been thinking about for a long time,’” recalled Dr. Pape, one of several international AIDS experts Mr. Bush consulted. “We indicated to him that our arms are totally broken as physicians, knowing that there are things we could do if we had the drugs.”
Nearly five years later, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — Pepfar, for short — may be the most lasting bipartisan accomplishment of the Bush presidency.
With a year left in office, Mr. Bush confronts an America bitterly split over the war in Iraq. His domestic achievements, the tax cuts and education reform, are not fully embraced by Democrats, and his second-term legislative agenda — revamping Social Security and immigration policy — lies in ruins.
The global AIDS program is a rare exception. So far, roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.
“It’s a good thing that he wanted to spend the money,” said Mr. Kerry, an early proponent of legislation similar to the plan Mr. Bush adopted. “I think it represents a tremendous accomplishment for the country.”
Announced in the 2003 State of the Union address, the plan called for $15 billion for AIDS prevention, treatment and care, concentrating on 15 hard-hit nations in Africa and the Caribbean. An enthusiastic Congress has already approved $19 billion.
Mr. Bush is pressing for a new five-year commitment of $30 billion. He will travel to Africa in February to make his case — and, the White House hopes, burnish the compassionate conservative side of his legacy.
Despite the effort, there are still 33 million people living with H.I.V., and the United Nations estimates that there were 1.7 million new infections in 2007 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Critics, including Mr. Kerry, are particularly incensed by the requirement that one-third of the prevention funds be spent teaching abstinence, despite a lack of scientific consensus that such programs reduce the spread of H.I.V.
When a Ugandan AIDS activist, Beatrice Were, denounced the abstinence-only approach at an international AIDS conference last year, she received a standing ovation. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, an advocacy group here in Washington, says the Bush program has been hamstrung by “ideologically driven policies.”
That assessment was echoed, in more diplomatic terms, by the independent Institute of Medicine, which evaluated the program in March. It called on Congress to abandon the abstinence requirement and to lift the ban on paying for clean needles for drug addicts, among other changes.
Yet the institute concluded that, over all, the program had made “a promising start.” And when they step back, even critics like Mr. Zeitz concede that Mr. Bush spawned a philosophical revolution. In one striking step, he put to rest the notion that because patients were poor or uneducated they did not deserve, or could not be taught to use, medicine that could mean the difference between life and death.
In Haiti, about 13,000 patients are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs. That is only half the estimated 26,000 who need them, but far more than the 100 being treated five years ago. “A huge success story,” Dr. Pape says, “beyond my imagination.”
In Uganda, a country already far along on its own AIDS initiative when Mr. Bush began his, 110,000 people are under treatment, and 2 million have H.I.V. tests each year, up from 10,000 treated and 400,000 tested before, according to Dr. Alex Coutinho, a top AIDS expert there. The money comes mostly from Pepfar, but also from a United Nations fund to which the United States contributes.
Dr. Coutinho said Ugandans were terrified that when Mr. Bush left office, “the Bush fund,” as they call it, would go with him. “When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what Pepfar stands for,” he said. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of.”
The story of how a conservative Republican president became a crusader against global AIDS is an unlikely one. Mr. Bush ran for the White House in 2000 with what Joshua B. Bolten, his chief of staff, calls “a Republican’s skepticism about the efficacy of foreign aid.” He talked of letting “Africa solve Africa’s problems.” But a variety of forces conspired to put the international AIDS epidemic on the new president’s agenda.
Colin L. Powell, then the new secretary of state, was deeply troubled by demographics showing that in some African nations, AIDS threatened to wipe out the entire child-bearing population — a condition that could create instability, and a climate ripe for terrorism. Just weeks into his new job, he called Tommy G. Thompson, the new administration’s health and human services secretary.
“I said, ‘Tommy, this is not just a health matter, this is a national security matter,’” Mr. Powell recalled. They vowed to work together, and the president, Mr. Powell said, “bought into it immediately.” Yet, little was done at first, infuriating advocates like Mr. Zeitz.
By 2002, though, Christian conservatives, a core component of Mr. Bush’s political base, began adopting the cause. Jesse Helms, the conservative Republican senator from North Carolina, declared himself ashamed that he had not done more. Bill Frist, a physician who was then a Republican senator from Tennessee, was badgering Mr. Bush about the epidemic. So was Bono, the rock star. Generic drugs were slashing the costs for treatment.
In the spring of that year, Mr. Bush sent Mr. Thompson and the government’s top AIDS expert, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, to Africa “to try to scope out anything we could do in a humanitarian way,” Dr. Fauci said.
They came back and proposed $500 million to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the disease. The president approved, Dr. Fauci said, but told them to think bigger.
“He wanted to do something game-changing,” Mr. Bolten said. “Something that, instead of at the margins assuaging everybody’s conscience, might actually change the trajectory of this disease which, from the reports we were getting, was headed to destroy a whole continent.”
Mr. Bolten, Dr. Fauci and a handful of others spent eight months quietly planning. Inside the White House, Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, favored the program.
But there was resistance from those who thought it “problematic to be announcing a lot of money for foreigners,” said Michael J. Gerson, Mr. Bush’s former speechwriter. Opponents waged an 11th-hour attempt to strip the announcement from the State of the Union address. Mr. Bush overruled them.
With the United States about to invade Iraq, some theorized that Mr. Bush was trying to soften the nation’s image. Not so, says Mr. Gerson, who calls the initiative “foreign policy moralism.” But he does see a link: “It fit a broader conception of his view of America’s purpose in the world, which included not just the liberation of other people, but their treatment for disease.”
The goals were ambitious: to treat 2 million people, prevent 7 million new infections and provide care for 10 million, including orphans and other children considered at risk, over five years, beginning in 2004 when the money became available.
The prevention targets will not be measured until 2010. But Dr. Mark Dybul, Mr. Bush’s global AIDS coordinator, says the program is on track to meet its goals. In addition to drugs for 1.4 million, the government says it has provided care for nearly 6.7 million people affected by the disease, including 2.7 million orphans and other children. Drugs provided to pregnant women have spared an estimated 152,000 infants from infection, the government says.
Some AIDS experts say the money could be spent more efficiently. Yet the fight is not over whether to reauthorize the program, but how. Much of the money has been channeled through American religious-based organizations, drawing criticism from people like Dr. Coutinho of Uganda, who say local control would cut costs.
Citing the current infection rate, advocates say $50 billion is needed, not $30 billion as Mr. Bush has proposed. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is also calling for $50 billion, as is Dr. Coutinho.
“Unless Pepfar is reauthorized at a much higher level,” Dr. Coutinho said, “we are going to be in the business of playing God.”
At the White House, AIDS advocacy has become a family affair. Laura Bush made her third trip to Africa last year, and the president’s daughter Jenna chronicled the life of a young H.I.V.-positive woman in a new book.
Mr. Bush announced his trip to Africa in conjunction with World AIDS Day in November, quoting from Deuteronomy: “I have set before you life and death ... Therefore, choose life.”
On that day, the North Portico of the White House was festooned with a huge red ribbon, the symbol of the fight against the epidemic. Even Mr. Zeitz took it as a promising sign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html?ref=world
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: January 5, 2008
WASHINGTON — Dr. Jean W. Pape did not know what to expect in early January 2003, when he slipped away from his work treating AIDS patients in Haiti and flew to Washington for a secret meeting with President Bush.
Mr. Bush was considering devoting billions to combat global AIDS, a public health initiative unparalleled in size and scope. The deliberations had been tightly carried out; even the health secretary was left out early on. If President Bush was going to shock the world — and skeptical Republicans — with a huge expenditure of American cash to send expensive drugs overseas, he wanted it to be well spent.
“He said, ‘I will hold you accountable, because this is a big move, this is an important thing that I’ve been thinking about for a long time,’” recalled Dr. Pape, one of several international AIDS experts Mr. Bush consulted. “We indicated to him that our arms are totally broken as physicians, knowing that there are things we could do if we had the drugs.”
Nearly five years later, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — Pepfar, for short — may be the most lasting bipartisan accomplishment of the Bush presidency.
With a year left in office, Mr. Bush confronts an America bitterly split over the war in Iraq. His domestic achievements, the tax cuts and education reform, are not fully embraced by Democrats, and his second-term legislative agenda — revamping Social Security and immigration policy — lies in ruins.
The global AIDS program is a rare exception. So far, roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.
“It’s a good thing that he wanted to spend the money,” said Mr. Kerry, an early proponent of legislation similar to the plan Mr. Bush adopted. “I think it represents a tremendous accomplishment for the country.”
Announced in the 2003 State of the Union address, the plan called for $15 billion for AIDS prevention, treatment and care, concentrating on 15 hard-hit nations in Africa and the Caribbean. An enthusiastic Congress has already approved $19 billion.
Mr. Bush is pressing for a new five-year commitment of $30 billion. He will travel to Africa in February to make his case — and, the White House hopes, burnish the compassionate conservative side of his legacy.
Despite the effort, there are still 33 million people living with H.I.V., and the United Nations estimates that there were 1.7 million new infections in 2007 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Critics, including Mr. Kerry, are particularly incensed by the requirement that one-third of the prevention funds be spent teaching abstinence, despite a lack of scientific consensus that such programs reduce the spread of H.I.V.
When a Ugandan AIDS activist, Beatrice Were, denounced the abstinence-only approach at an international AIDS conference last year, she received a standing ovation. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, an advocacy group here in Washington, says the Bush program has been hamstrung by “ideologically driven policies.”
That assessment was echoed, in more diplomatic terms, by the independent Institute of Medicine, which evaluated the program in March. It called on Congress to abandon the abstinence requirement and to lift the ban on paying for clean needles for drug addicts, among other changes.
Yet the institute concluded that, over all, the program had made “a promising start.” And when they step back, even critics like Mr. Zeitz concede that Mr. Bush spawned a philosophical revolution. In one striking step, he put to rest the notion that because patients were poor or uneducated they did not deserve, or could not be taught to use, medicine that could mean the difference between life and death.
In Haiti, about 13,000 patients are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs. That is only half the estimated 26,000 who need them, but far more than the 100 being treated five years ago. “A huge success story,” Dr. Pape says, “beyond my imagination.”
In Uganda, a country already far along on its own AIDS initiative when Mr. Bush began his, 110,000 people are under treatment, and 2 million have H.I.V. tests each year, up from 10,000 treated and 400,000 tested before, according to Dr. Alex Coutinho, a top AIDS expert there. The money comes mostly from Pepfar, but also from a United Nations fund to which the United States contributes.
Dr. Coutinho said Ugandans were terrified that when Mr. Bush left office, “the Bush fund,” as they call it, would go with him. “When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what Pepfar stands for,” he said. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of.”
The story of how a conservative Republican president became a crusader against global AIDS is an unlikely one. Mr. Bush ran for the White House in 2000 with what Joshua B. Bolten, his chief of staff, calls “a Republican’s skepticism about the efficacy of foreign aid.” He talked of letting “Africa solve Africa’s problems.” But a variety of forces conspired to put the international AIDS epidemic on the new president’s agenda.
Colin L. Powell, then the new secretary of state, was deeply troubled by demographics showing that in some African nations, AIDS threatened to wipe out the entire child-bearing population — a condition that could create instability, and a climate ripe for terrorism. Just weeks into his new job, he called Tommy G. Thompson, the new administration’s health and human services secretary.
“I said, ‘Tommy, this is not just a health matter, this is a national security matter,’” Mr. Powell recalled. They vowed to work together, and the president, Mr. Powell said, “bought into it immediately.” Yet, little was done at first, infuriating advocates like Mr. Zeitz.
By 2002, though, Christian conservatives, a core component of Mr. Bush’s political base, began adopting the cause. Jesse Helms, the conservative Republican senator from North Carolina, declared himself ashamed that he had not done more. Bill Frist, a physician who was then a Republican senator from Tennessee, was badgering Mr. Bush about the epidemic. So was Bono, the rock star. Generic drugs were slashing the costs for treatment.
In the spring of that year, Mr. Bush sent Mr. Thompson and the government’s top AIDS expert, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, to Africa “to try to scope out anything we could do in a humanitarian way,” Dr. Fauci said.
They came back and proposed $500 million to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the disease. The president approved, Dr. Fauci said, but told them to think bigger.
“He wanted to do something game-changing,” Mr. Bolten said. “Something that, instead of at the margins assuaging everybody’s conscience, might actually change the trajectory of this disease which, from the reports we were getting, was headed to destroy a whole continent.”
Mr. Bolten, Dr. Fauci and a handful of others spent eight months quietly planning. Inside the White House, Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, favored the program.
But there was resistance from those who thought it “problematic to be announcing a lot of money for foreigners,” said Michael J. Gerson, Mr. Bush’s former speechwriter. Opponents waged an 11th-hour attempt to strip the announcement from the State of the Union address. Mr. Bush overruled them.
With the United States about to invade Iraq, some theorized that Mr. Bush was trying to soften the nation’s image. Not so, says Mr. Gerson, who calls the initiative “foreign policy moralism.” But he does see a link: “It fit a broader conception of his view of America’s purpose in the world, which included not just the liberation of other people, but their treatment for disease.”
The goals were ambitious: to treat 2 million people, prevent 7 million new infections and provide care for 10 million, including orphans and other children considered at risk, over five years, beginning in 2004 when the money became available.
The prevention targets will not be measured until 2010. But Dr. Mark Dybul, Mr. Bush’s global AIDS coordinator, says the program is on track to meet its goals. In addition to drugs for 1.4 million, the government says it has provided care for nearly 6.7 million people affected by the disease, including 2.7 million orphans and other children. Drugs provided to pregnant women have spared an estimated 152,000 infants from infection, the government says.
Some AIDS experts say the money could be spent more efficiently. Yet the fight is not over whether to reauthorize the program, but how. Much of the money has been channeled through American religious-based organizations, drawing criticism from people like Dr. Coutinho of Uganda, who say local control would cut costs.
Citing the current infection rate, advocates say $50 billion is needed, not $30 billion as Mr. Bush has proposed. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is also calling for $50 billion, as is Dr. Coutinho.
“Unless Pepfar is reauthorized at a much higher level,” Dr. Coutinho said, “we are going to be in the business of playing God.”
At the White House, AIDS advocacy has become a family affair. Laura Bush made her third trip to Africa last year, and the president’s daughter Jenna chronicled the life of a young H.I.V.-positive woman in a new book.
Mr. Bush announced his trip to Africa in conjunction with World AIDS Day in November, quoting from Deuteronomy: “I have set before you life and death ... Therefore, choose life.”
On that day, the North Portico of the White House was festooned with a huge red ribbon, the symbol of the fight against the epidemic. Even Mr. Zeitz took it as a promising sign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html?ref=world
It's a myth my friend.
No one wants to help Africa!!
It's all just platitudes....There is no vested interest in the West assisting Africa...
The worlds resources are scarce enough as it is. Any improvement in the well bing and welfare of Africans will result in them claiming a greater share of the said resources.
Any advancement of the African continent can only be achieved by Africans themselves..
Ironically any advancement in Africa leading to a greater claim and share of the world resources will penalize African Americans as they live in the West.
Just looks like another vehicle to push public funds into religious organizations. Africa is just an afterthought to a larger goal of spreading a tragically failed policy.
so after all this time they havent done much of shit and the only reason this is being pushed now is because of the national security implications - that shill nytimes article doesn't get into it but there have been serious talks in the UN and in the US about the ramifications of a nation of orphans in africa and what that means to the war on terror and energy interests etc
btw que - is that article about any of the same program this thread was originally about?
btw que - is that article about any of the same program this thread was originally about?
Last edited:
What has Rice run for in her entire life except maybe student council president? What public consensus has she ever built on an issue. When she was young, she refused to participate in the civil rights movement choosing to become the corporate hack she is. That’s fine, I’m not made at her for that, but it has been demonstrated that black neocons don’t get elected. Does any one know her specific views on anything? At least Colin Powell has stepped out and made is person views on affirmative action and abortion known.
Condi's reputation is permanently damaged by her participation in the Bush Administration or permanently solidified, depending on your viewpoint.
She's a waste of human life IMO and a total dyke scumbag hack bitch. Her activities during Katrina sum up her soul to me.
Last edited:
Man, you're laughing at shit from two and a half/three years ago THAT WAS REPUDIATED THREE POSTS ABOVE YOURS and more than half a year ago.
I haven't even heard anyone talk about Rice as a political candidate for over a year, you're kicking a dead ass horse.
If they want a group to do humanitarian work, who else would go? Would any of you go?
Some african american churches have been in Africa and the Caribbean for decades, so the structure is already there, the workers are there, the groudwork is laid. They're already doing it (building clinics, schools, etc.) and are constantly working to do more - so, why wouldn't they pour money into existing programs and call it a moment? Clearly they have ulterior motives...if the right people can't profit from/get credit for their efforts, they need a whole new program.
Some african american churches have been in Africa and the Caribbean for decades, so the structure is already there, the workers are there, the groudwork is laid. They're already doing it (building clinics, schools, etc.) and are constantly working to do more - so, why wouldn't they pour money into existing programs and call it a moment? Clearly they have ulterior motives...if the right people can't profit from/get credit for their efforts, they need a whole new program.
Last edited:
Read the dates on the stories then go google "bush and faith based initiatives" and find out how that all worked out.
Shows how the GOP was trying to play Black folk before the 2006 elections. Since then Katrina and the housing mortgage bust has rendered the republicans back to their normal stance on Black issues. Silent!
BTW, is their a Black republican, besides Colin Powell that Black folk would take as a legitimate national candidate? NO!
Bush's PEPFAR director bows out
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 10:43am
The Obama administration has accepted the resignation of Dr. Mark Dybul, President Bush's director of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), sources tell The Cable. "His office was packed up, he said goodybe to staff around 3:30, and seemed emotional," a department source said Thursday. "Eric Goosby is the rumored replacement."
Although Dybul had previously been reported to have been asked to stay on indefinitely, the Washington Blade reported Thursday that Obama "senior advisors were concerned about the negative reaction from some AIDS activists and reproductive rights groups to news that Dybul would be staying on. ... A number of AIDS and reproductive rights groups have urged Obama to replace Dybul with someone the groups see as more likely to change the Bush administration's insistence that at least some international AIDS relief funds be linked to abstinence-only programs."
A call to the White House was not returned. The Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator sent queries to the State Department, which did not immediately respond.
UPDATE: A State Department spokeswoman confirmed that Dybul was asked to submit his resignation and is no longer serving in that role.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/23/bushs_pepfar_director_bows_out
yep, proves that folks on this board tend to be on the "bitch ass" end of our race.
Oh yea, President Obama praised President Bush's efforts in fighting Aids in Africa.
Yet, no news on here.
This is why I don't post on here that much.
Too funny!!!
You've been itching to post here -- -- but there hasn't been a lot coming out of your wacko-right destroy-everything-to-get-Obama friends to give you an opportunity to . . .
about and actanass ! ! ! !
Too funny!!!
You've been itching to post here -- -- but there hasn't been a lot coming out of your wacko-right destroy-everything-to-get-Obama friends to give you an opportunity to . . .
about and actanass ! ! ! !
how are you going to assume that I was itching to post? There's plenty of things I could post, but I really don't see the point anymore. Once people were dogging Ice T for his beliefs about guns, I was pretty much done with this section. I wasn't posting as much for around a year now. I talk more on the main board if anything these days.
Let's stick on this point. How is "churches and religion [being] markedly absent from everything" going on now-- the subject of my post that you quoted and to which you ostensibly responded-- something which "proves that folks on this board tend to be on the 'bitch ass' end of our race"?
Please explain.
Everything Obama comments on should be news on here?
I did explain my stance when folks on here decide to attack Ice T for his gun beliefs. If you remember, I was way more active before that time.
BTW, yea I thought EVERYTHING President Obama believed in would be news on here. I thought President Obama can do no wrong.
How is "churches and religion [being] markedly absent from everything" going on now-- the subject of my post that you quoted and to which you ostensibly responded-- something which "proves that folks on this board tend to be on the 'bitch ass' end of our race"?
I thought you meant folks on this board.
On the church angle, I think this has a lot to do with President Obama. President Obama does not come off as a religious president. In fact, most churches are secretly mad at President Obama. It would be kinda hard to get the same support the Bush administration asked for.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Similar threads
