The "Black Church": An Open Discussion
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24252
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 01:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The "Black Church": An Open Discussion
Posted By: Akolouthos
Subject: The "Black Church": An Open Discussion
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 04:16
|
One of the productive things that has come out of the Rev. Wright controversy has been the opportunity to discuss what has come to be known as the "Black Church". Thus, I propose that we discuss in this thread the underlying theology, ecclesiology, hermeneutical tradition, compatability/incompatibility with Scripture, and all of the other issues relevant to the "Black Church".
Let me be perfectly clear. This thread is not intended for the discussion of the Rev. Wright controversy, the campaign, or any other current political issues; any posts dealing with specific political figures or the ramifications of the Wright controversy for the campaign will be considered off-topic. These issues may be referenced, but only in the context of the topic. Also, if you wish to post, please post something intellectually substantive. This thread is not the place to be tossing about slogans and one-line arguments.
That said, I think this has the potential to be a wonderful discussion. I will post a couple of my personal opinions to get us started, and then I shall leave the next stage of the discussion to you. I will, time permitting, post a more in-depth analysis later, but for the present I am interested to see how the thread develops. Anyway, here we go:
A Brief Analysis:
The idea of a "Black Church" is untenable according to the fundamental tenets of Christianity; it is just as indefensible as the concept of a "White Church" or any of the racist groups claiming to present a Christianity founded upon race-issues. We must acknowledge, however, that the Black Church is the unfortunate result of racism in the white churches of the previous several centuries. In this sense, while it remains indefensible, it is historically understandable; indeed, the schism is a natural consequence of the perversion of Christianity by white slave-owners and the priviledged classes of the 18th and 19th centuries. That said, any authentically Christian pastor would repudiate the idea of a seperate racial church existing in perpetuity -- the goal should be to bridge the fissures created by the sins of the past (racism, class oppression, etc.), and to seek an authentic unity (and to be authentic, the sins of the past must be acknowledged and renounced). "We just do things differently," "We developed in a different context," and "You [being white, rich, etc.] can't understand," are not viable excuses for the continued existence of a conglomeration that fosters disunity and will inevitably provide a vehicle for alienation, tension, resentment, and hatred.
Anyway, these are just a couple of my thoughts on the matter. For an understanding of the historical and theological background of the "Black Church", you may look to the wikipedia articles which are linked below. The "Black Church" article is a bit deficient, but the "Black Theology" article makes up for many of the deficiencies. I look forward to discussing this issue with you all.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology -Akolouthos
|
Replies:
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 19:48
|
Well, the Black church is just the parallel in religion to the happy apartheid going on in the American society. Communities are living each one on its side with the motto: as long as we don't mix, we don't bother each other. Where I live in LA, there are two big communities: Mexicans and Koreans. Guess what each community has its own schools, supermarkets, gyms, etc. Only Euros and Blacks who are not numerous enough to have their own communities in the neighbourhood use the amenities from both communities. Since churches in the US are very much a community amenity along with the grocery store (it was advertised as such by my landlord), it is only normal that churches reflect the segregation between communities. When it comes to black people in the US, the fact is that they have their own culture, give specific names to their children, live in black neighbourhoods and --indeed-- go to black churches. Religion is 100% social, theology is noting but the "super-structure" hiding the social core of the issue. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 05:27
|
Interesting Maharbbal, and, I think, spot on. It is unfortunate, and undoubtedly un-Christian, but churches today are, indeed, viewed as "community amenities". Even when one "searches" for a church, all too often they go about the process as if they were trying on a shirt to see if it looks good on them -- instead of seeing if the shirt, itself, is made of sound material. I've often wished to see a study of the effects of the "commuter church" concept in the Orthodox Church.
That said, I am interested to see what we make of Black Liberation Theology in particular. Does it match up with the Gospel message (either in whole or in part)? Does it correct things that have been lacking in the past? Does it overcorrect?
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 05:34
Whether it was originally intended to or not, liberation theology in general when practiced by churches, usually of the "church-of-anything-goes" type, ends up superceding or overshadowing the message of the Gospel. It becomes something that bleeding hearts wear on their sleeves as a political statement while the death and resurrection of our Lord is left in the dust.
The testament of Christ and his apostles is enough for Christians to apply in a practical manner in any area of life and is something that transcends politics and race. "Liberation Theology" is an uninspired contrivance of man, in my opinion.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 04:34
|
Sorry, Late to the party... This 'black liberation theology' has always puzzled me. As a Christian I feel somewhat at a loss to explain how the concept of the 'Good Samaritan' has escaped this church. I continue to hear the cries of the disenfranchised black man as he rails against white society while he creates an atmosphere of isolation that does nothing to satisfy his claim. Why does he do that? Why does he insist on being separate when he wants to be accepted? Is it just that even though slavery has been dead for more than 100 years in America, he still wants his pound of flesh? If the black man is truly serious about 'liberating' his people why isn't he on a mission to Africa to release the bonds of his cousins? African peoples have suffered the most horrible of horribles, yet the American black man seems content to stay at home and complain about the way he is still treated by an oppressive society. How can this be? Granted, the black man was brought here in chains, but those days are long gone. The people, the slave traders are all dead. But, other cultures that have come to America and have realized the potential of 'liberation'. The Chinese have endured much in the way of discrimination and abuse, yet they seem to flourish. The Irish have been kicked from town to town, yet they seem to flourish. Several ethnicities have suffered at the hands of the ill-tempered, greedy and cruel. How is it that the black man needs a 'black liberation church' with a 'theology' all it's own, to feel whole? To feel 'liberated'? Why doesn't the American black man return to his cousins in Africa and bring them technology? Bring them Hope? Bring them Freedom? I fear that the lure of the 'Great Society' and it's beneficence have become so ingrained in the black culture that standing on ones own two feet is truly a dangerous proposition. It seems far easier, to create a church that supports the status quo and indulges the notion of 'being owed', rather, than to become the Good Samaritan and be counted among the great success stories of the world. ------------- 
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 14:09
|
Does anyone have any information on how far this kind of thing spreads in the countries of Africa? Is it a specifically US phenomenon?
I've known from African friends who have gone to the US to study or work that the cultural divide between Afro-Americans and Africans themselves (and West Indians, too) is considerable and difficult to overcome. ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 14:43
|
I hear there is an evangelical movement booming in Kenya at the moment. Other than that, the African churches are certainly more 'lively' than their American-European counterparts!
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 18:08
Well, maybe you haven’t learned enough about Liberation Theology. To begin with, many of the churches that embraced Liberation Theology were not anything-goes churches. Most churches in Latin America, where liberation theology thrived, are quite conservative. I grew up in a pretty conservative city in Mexico, and liberation theology ideas where discussed in homilies and by Bishop conferences. The social roots for this interpretation, which I believe is close to the true meaning of the Gospels, from very hard social conditions. It is one thing to read about poverty and injustice and another one to witness it and having to deal with it. The roots of Liberation Theology are rooted in the Gospels. The preferential focus on the poor was clearly expressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which opens with a list on how those who are weak, meek, and seek social justice and peace are the children of God. I would like to say that this is a uniquely Roman Catholic interpretation, but it is not true. Previously, the Methodist and the Quakers had found a strong commitment on working towards social justice and in favor of the poor. So this means that this interpretation is not novel in any way. In fact, Christianity without a strong social justice component seems to me to be a total misinterpretation of what Christianity is about. As Jesus also said, you will identify his followers by their actions. So too much focus on rituals and theology without actually living the teachings of Jesus seems to me like an act of self satisfaction on our own piety; exactly the kind of thinking that Jesus criticized so much. After all, did Jesus focus on theological points, or did he rather heal the sick? I am a proud bleeding heart, but I find myself in good company since the ultimate bleeding heart, after all, was Jesus. :[)] ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 18:21
Try to get into their position. Remember that for many African Americans today, they had great grandparents who were slaves. For another 100 years they had to deal with segregation, legal for between 60 to 70 years. The way the end of legal segregation was won was by having people exposing themselves to the hatred of mobs. Many were killed. All of this has happened yesterday, in historical terms. With the Churches in particular, it was White Churches who refused to have black people in their congregations. The Methodist Church, one of the first to ordain black ministers, felt obligated to segregate the white and black communities because this is what the WHITE members wanted. When the Methodist Church united in the U.S., the one sticking point was that many Southern Methodist didn't want to unite with the black Churches. The Methodist Church finally got united and integrated in the 1960s. Again, this has all just happened yesterday. Today's 60-year-olds were people who witnessed this kind of segregations and discrimination when they were children and as young adults. A final note: when are we going to talk about white male entitlement? The one group that consistently complains about not getting a fair chance happens to be the ones that actually have the most. To be fair, it seems that only the failures complain about how society mistreats them. Funny, isn't it? ------------- |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 19:46
Oh, I'm quite familiar with the history, both direct and indirect, of how the black man has been treated. And yes, it does seem like 'yesterday', that all this happened.
I have lived in their communities and befriended many. I know all about segregation, mobs, riots, beatings and cross burnings. I understand how the southern churches locked out the black man.
While segregation was imposed by the predominately white culture, it now seems to be a cherished condition by many blacks.
My concern is not about the whys and wherefores of slavery, I just wonder why he doesn't reach out to his cousins in Africa? Sure some have built schools, hospitals and such. But where is the outpouring of compassion and relief?
-------------
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 21:59
|
Interesting, Maximus and hugo; I'm certainly glad to see some discussion in this thread. We certainly cannot forget that it was largely white racism -- over the course of around a century -- that led to the gradual evolution of the "black church", but neither can we abrogate our responsibility to act in the present according to the will of Christ. This is what makes the issue really tricky. Essentially we must acknowledge and repent of the sins of the past while demanding that the "black church" leaders acknowledge and repent of their sins in the present; obviously, there will be some amount of distrust, but this renders the message no less legitimate. The problem, at present, is that the "black church" has been infected with the vestigial doctrines of black separatism, which is unquestionably opposed to the unity of the Body of Christ. Because of this ideological malady, there is little room left, after all of the hate filled rhetoric of the "prophetic tradition" to address the central message of Christian love and to work in the world for the health, welfare, and salvation of others. Essentially, Christian truth is replaced by a message of bigoted recriminations which serve no purpose other than to keep ripping open the wounds of the past, and this is abhorrent to Christ. We should certainly and wholeheartedly condemn the institutional crimes of the past, but we are equally obligated to condemn the institutional crimes of the present. -Akolouthos P.S. If you want to talk about white male entitlement, hugo, feel free to start a thread.  |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 23:33
|
Echo. Echo, Akolouthos. Your post brings out the relevance of placing Christ above the self. That's the missing element in the black church and in the black liberation theology.
The firey rhetoric from the pulpit should, in my opion, be directed at lust, glutony, anger, greed, sloth, envy and pride. Not at the United States of America.
PS: Oh my. Don't start with White Male Entitlement... Someone is going to step on my last good nerve! -------------
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2009 at 13:24
|
Since I may assume that most of you did not live in the South during segregation, maybe I can tell you more about it and the "Black" church than you may want to know?
I know, you will look at my avatar and information section and see that I now reside in Mississippi, a state many Americans and Europeans, etc., has nothing but evil connotations! But, that is to be expected since it became somewhat easy for people in the news business to pick out Mississippi for numerous reasons as an example of all that is and was wrong in the USA, and especially in the SouthEastern states. After all the University of Mississippi, has hisorically used the Confederated Battle Flag as its symbol, as well as a mascot who is dressed in Confederate Officer Grey! The school fight song was "Dixie", etc., and Mississippi was the last state to apply for and receive re-admission into the Union! I think the above statements are correct? And I did not even mention the racial atrocities committed in Mississippi over the years! But, most of you have certainly heard of many of them? After all movies were made about it! But there are certainly some things about Mississippi that most of you do not know! Did you know that many areas of Mississippi were looted and burned numerous times during the War of Northern Agression?, actually creating vast waste lands, that were even commented upon by Union troops! Georgia was not the only state to suffer a "burned Earth" policy! Did any of you know that Mississippi was the "only" state that was occupied by "Negro" Military Units of Occupation? Did any of you know that the vast majority of White males in the State were not allowed to vote in elections until about 1873? Did you know that former slaves and "Negro" carpet baggers from the North (and "turncoat" southerners called "scallywags", held most all of the political offices in the state, again until about 1877! Whites were regularly turned away from the polls by armed Negro Union Troops! You might well want to read this; http://www.westga.edu/~hgoodson/Reconstruction.htm Which is not a Southern biased report. RE; "Congress’ Reconstruction plan dramatically changed politics in the South. More than 700,000 black voters were enfranchised, and about 15% of potential white voters were disqualified. As a result, Republican governments came to power in each southern state. Southern states were considered to be under reconstruction so long as they had Republican governments (the time that Republicans held power varied by state). The new state constitutions brought revolutionary change to the South. They were established on the principle that all men are created equal, and under them for the first time blacks were to be treated as equals before the law. The constitutions also provided social services (hospitals and orphanages, for example), and put money into railroad expansion. Most importantly, for the first time in the South, these constitutions established free statewide public school systems, open to blacks as well as to whites." But, with the above site as a background, I would tell you something about Southern religion, at least in N. Mississippi, that needs to be known! My mother who would be age 93 or so if she were still alive, told me about her early days in the Southern Baptist church. It seems that White Baptists, at least in my mother's area, had the only building specifically built for church services (I would assume that the Methodists and the Church of Christ also had permanent church buildings, and that just about covered the religious options at that time!, IE. no Catholic or Orthodox churches!) and my mother and her family and friends would have their Sunday services in the morning. Neighborhood Blacks would form up ouitside of the church and sing and listen to the service with the Whites inside. The white service would end about noon, and the White people would go home for "dinner", but the church was not merely abandoned at this time, for while both Blacks and Whites went home to eat, the Blacks, went back to this "Baptist church building in the after-noon and used it for their services. My mother and her friends would often return to the church in the after-noon and stand outside of the building singing hymns, and enjoying the service as outside guests to the Black congregation! Funny, most people have never even considered that such a "Christian", but strictly segregated, act could take place! There are other stories to be told, but I have bored most of you to death by now! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2009 at 19:20
|
Opuslola, glad to see you have resurrected this thread... I fear, soon, we will be discussing this topic in greater detail. If the rumors are true, we may well see another 'segregation' of polar opposites - those who stand for The Constitution and those who would use it to wash the windows. The 2010 elections should give us a preview... I pray there will be NO blood in the streets! Best Regards, Maximus -------------
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 21:12
And Maximus, it seems that after these elections, some order to the universe and especially the USA has been achieved! 
And, best of all, there was no "blood in the streets!", which means that for now at least, the American transition from one power to another is again bloodless! May the Almighty bless the USA! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 22:11
|
Yes, Opuslola... There was no blood in the streets, thank The Lord!
And there does seem to be a bit of order restored.
I was especially interested in the movement, albeit minimal, of Hispanics and Blacks to the Republican Party. Why, in The South, that must be near sacrilege?
My hope is that this man in The White House is seen for what he truly is, and not a 'hero' or 'savior' to people of color...
But is is surely difficult to sway the man in the street from feeling his President is nothing short of 'kingly' after the entourage he takes with him to India! 40 war ships? 3000 'staff'? The ENTIRE Taj Mahal?
And we in the US are seeing our National Debt rise at the rate of $4.13 billion per day?
My, my... -------------
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2010 at 22:52
|
Some times the "Mask" of the "Minstrel" starts to bleed!
See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface Afterall the man is half? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2010 at 15:34
Hey genius: Debunking the myth: The cost of Obama's trip to Asiahttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/obama.asia.cost/ Dont trust Republicans/Conservatives/Fox News....they are good at one thing and one thing only, LYING AND DECEIVING. Get it? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2010 at 17:16
OK TGS, I'll accept that the figures are way too high, therefor I will state that the real figures are somewhere about Fifty Million Dollars per day! OK? 
Dont trust Democrats/Liberals (progressives), NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS News....they are good at one thing and one thing only, LYING AND DECEIVING. Thanks for the idea TGS! For an example pleast look at this report about the holier than thou Keith Olbermann formerly a progressive star on MSNBC!; http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann-for-giving-political-donations/19705123 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2010 at 11:52
|
He made personal donations with his own private money, up to the legal amount, to the candidates he thought were the best. Sean Hannity gave $5,000 to Michelle Bachmann's political action committee, $2,400 to John Gomez (Congressional candidate). Thats just one example. Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee (all with TV shows on Fox) have donated to (in the thousands of dollars), fundraised for, and endorsed DOZENS of Republican political candidates. Unlike Fox News, MSNBC actually holds its journalists/commentators to a standard (which includes not allowing its journalists or commentators to make on air political endorsements or donating to political campaigns without approval) . You wouldnt understand those standards though, conservatives do not have standards for much of anything really. FOX NEWS IS NOT NEWS, ITS PROPAGANDA. Theres your fun fact for the day. Keith will be back, dont worry about that. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2010 at 13:06
|
So Olbermnn violated company policy? Since you mention all of those FOX stars, then it seems that they have a different company policy!
Very simple really since there appears to be no "law" preventing it! So just why did you even mention their names? That is my "fun fact of the day!"  ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2010 at 14:43
What fact? You merely pointed out the obvious (which you did not even know until after you read my post) I merely pointed out to you the difference between a news organization like MSNBC, and an entertainment channel like Fox News. I applaud MSNBC for atleast having some standards for decent journalism. Fox News, on the other hand, is despicable, hell, News Corp itself donated $1 million dollars to the Republican Party. What type of "news" organization does that? Which one do you get your news from? The news channel or the entertainment channel? You get your news from the entertainment channel.
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2010 at 15:16
|
"What fact? You merely pointed out the obvious (which you did not even know until after you read my post"
Correcto! I did not know nor care! And it rather seems Herr Olbermnn (obviously a NAZI?) did not care either, since he obviously broke the company rules! You see to easily forget that News is a form of entertainment! If it was not entertainment, then the news might well be "five citizens murdered today!, four banks were robbed, six women were raped, two school buses wrecked and all aboard were killed!, two famous actors died, as well as one famous politician", five houses burned to the groud, Air Bus crashes into hospital and all 2,000 died, etc.! The difference is that the names, places, and other descriptive items make this rather dull news entertainment! Notice that the basic facts are correct,but there are a lot of possible questions to be asked and answered for this "news" to be entertaining! A news broadcast or news-paper with nothing but headlines is merely "attention grabing" if you find out no more information then you will tend to disregard the headlines! You know I am correct about the above! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 14:53
|
What are you talking about? I cant believe Fox News has you so brainwashed that you have even changed your definition of news just so you can justify their blatant lies and propaganda. Once again, by Glenn Beck's OWN ADMISSION:
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:18
Quite a remarkable post... Especially since it seems to rely on CNN for data. Of course we all know that CNN is a fairly liberal news machine... but I guess that doesn't count, huh genius? Might be a good thing if you sought some therapy for all that anger... -------------
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:20
|
Liberal? Liberalism does not exist in US media. Even "liberal" MSNBC has a conservative morning talk show. You want other sources disproving the ridiculous claim that Obama's trip cost $200 million a day and required 1 tenth of the United States navy? Do you even know how that rumor got started? It got started as a result of an Indian news article citing an anonymous source....AND FOX NEWS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN REPORTING IT AS FACT and has been spreading this rumor like wildfire. http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/ - READ THIS, ITS ALL EXPLAINED ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:31
|
Respectfully, this thread was about the "Black Church"... not about your hero.
As I said, it is my fear that many, like you, will become enthralled with the hype of this character and fall victim to his publicity factory. Looks like you are deep into the trance...
Sorry to have disturbed your afternoon snooze.
Maximus
-------------
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:36
Then why did you change the topic of conversation? You brought up this change in topic, not me.
What publicity factory? You all seem to think hes not a citizen, or a muslim, or a nazi, or a socialist, or hitler...etc. not to mention the hundreds of rumors and lies floating out there. I guess his "publicity factory" isnt doing such a good job. Obama has already done more than Bush did in 8 years, in a positive way. He has created over a million jobs (Bush lost us millions of jobs), he stabilized the economy, enacted healthcare and wall street reform, GOT THE TAX PAYERS MONEY BACK PLUS INTEREST AFTER THE BANK BAILOUTS, etc.. etc... Obama has been doing a fantastic jobs, its those blinded by hate and ignorance that do not see this. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Maximus
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:49
|
I didn't change the topic... I merely remarked that people of color were susceptible to his obvious 'mystical trickery', and that they would serve the world better if they reached out to their kin in Africa. But... Why do you assume I mined data from FOX News?Isn't that a bit arrogant of you?
FYI - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html - HERE - is where most of my information came from... The Daily Mail in The UK
Since you don't seem to have much else to offer this discussion than your love for 'the one', I think I'll move on to more productive avenues...
Have a nice day...
Maximus -------------
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 16:54
Thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. First of all Blacks overwhelming voted Democrat even prior to Obama, and have always been strong supporters of the Democrats (since the 60s). Saying that their support for Obama is something new and strange and is due to him also being a person of color is completely ludicrous. Black people loved Clinton, and still do. Obama's approval ratings amongst blacks right now is around 88%, which is the same as Clinton's approval ratings amongst blacks at the end of his second term. So were blacks also susceptible to Clintons "mystical trickery" because he was white? And are now susceptible to Obama's "mystical trickery" because hes half black?
My apologies, although this goes to show that media has gone down the drain and no one fact checks anything anymore. Well, atleast now you know that the story is FALSE and complete and utter non-sense.
Posting ridiculous misinformation does not add to this discussion either. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 17:14
|
TGS you did notice that even I admitted that the 200 million dollars per day was a gross overestimate, and I presented my opinion that the real cost was more in the area of 50 million dollars per day!
See buddy, I am supporting you now! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 17:19
|
$50 million dollars a day? Based on what? What an absurd claim. I dont think you fully understand how much $50million is and how hard it is to actually spend that much money. Remember, the war in Afghanistan costs $190 million a day, you're suggesting that Obama's trip to India costs 1/4 of the daily Afghani war expenditure? What the hell is he spending $50 million a day on?  Given historical expenditures on presidential travel, Its probably more like 3 or 4 million a day, if that. Bill Clintons trips cost between 2 and 3 million a day. After 9/11, security concerns probably raised the cost, so Obama probably has the same amount of expenditures on trips as Bush did, probably anywhere from 3 to 5 million a day. Given India's location in an insecure part of the world right now, and the fact that Mumbai was the target of a terrorist attack, I'm assuming they spent more money on security then usual, so I'd say 5 million is a pretty reasonable estimate. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 18:05
Well OK we will split the difference and call it 20-25 million per day 
There is such a thing as inflation! 
Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 20:39
Are you implying that $20-25 million today is worth 2 to 3 million in 1990's dollars? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2010 at 21:08
|
Please check GS employee pay and GI pay from 1990 to 2010? Or don't you even know the abbreviations that I used?
And that does not count the inflation that has occured in Pakistan, India, Indonesia over the same period! I retired in 1996, and thought I made pretty good money, but that magic word that you deny called "inflation" has made that pay somewhat normal/ lower mid level, in Federal Service today! And you just have to know that Military Pay has increased even faster! After all these men and women are now "vols!" In other words, the world today is more dangerous to our President than it was in the 1990's! And the real cost of most everything has risen considerably! Surely I might well have exagerated the costs! But you seem to "low-ball" the same! Again you speak from a point of mis-education or mis-direction! Unless you show some spirit of "getting along" then I will mostly ignore you from now on! I am sure that will please red clay also! It will also identify you as an enemy of both me and the USA, rather than a co-historist, looking for the answers! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |