Yes. What does a handful of quotes from James Cone have to do with Barack Obama?

Obama likes Wright, Wright likes Cone, Cone wrote a few books, and its easy to quote mine those books.
It's sort of like the Trent Lott thing, if it was instead Lott's pastor who had made the comments about Thurmond and Thurmond's history of racism was instead a few out of context quotes pulled from a book he wrote during reconstruction.
In Bit's world any inference that Lott is a racist is beyond the pale, but Obama is definitely a racist. It seems the most important evidence of racism for him is the letter that follows a politician's name.

I get it, Michael, from their words, and their actions. No place else. What else, after all, what I make such judgments from?

And yet, based on those same words and actions, I don't get it. So either your judgment is based on empirical evidence, and I'm just completely irrational, or your judgment is based on subjective feelings, which I don't share. Do you think that I'm irrational Bit?

Any questions?

Yes. What does a handful of quotes from James Cone have to do with Barack Obama?

A couple of your quotes put in context,

All white men are responsible for white oppression.

was directly tied to a Karl Jaspers quote, which you would have seen had you looked

There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.

Am I giving you too much credit by assuming that you can see how the 2 are related and why a black man in the US in 1969 would connect with this?

Another of your quotes set in context

The demonic forces of racism are real for the black man. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces.

Am I overestimating you here as well when I assume that you can see how this context changes the meaning of the sentence you cherry picked? or that you could understand why a black man would write that in 1969 and not be so very far off base?
The others quotes are more of the same.

The same thing happens each time: you drag out the same cherry picked sentences from the same books, you are shown that the sentences in their proper context do not say what you portray them to, then you dismiss this out of hand, wait for it to be brought up again and repeat. Call it dismissed as much as you like that does not make your misrepresentations correct.

Here are some quotes you missed,

From old plantations of the South to newer ghettos of the North, the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of this white power structure.

Yes, we must stand up and say, I'm black and I'm beautiful, and this self-affirmation is the black man's need, made compelling by the white man's crimes against him.

The plantation and ghetto were created by those who had power, both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness.

In a violent racial situation, the power structure has the local police, the state troopers, the National Guard and, finally, the army to call on—all of which are predominantly white.

more scary words from a scary black man.

I just don't see where you are getting that from.

I get it, Michael, from their words, and their actions. No place else. What else, after all, what I make such judgments from?

Same to you, Grew... I don't make these comments based on not understanding, I make these comments based on the fact that I do understand. It is you who is trying to avoid coming to the one obvious conclusion here. Your argument that this stuff is being taken out of context, and these things are not as they seem is dismissed.

Those comments, and many many more of the like, are the very basis of Cone's church, and by extension of Wrights teaching. arguments that these things are not as violent as they seem, are dismissed. Have you any others to offer?

And Bit, if you are going to harp on a book ad nauseum you should read it and make some attempt at understanding. Barring that incredibly unlikely event at least read a few paragraphs before and after the statements you cherry pick so that at least you might understand the argument being made.

* both in the context of Cones larger argument and the context of the time it was written

Only if the videos in question and the statements made recently are representative of some significant number of his sermons while he was the pastor of Obama's church, which is of course what I was trying to get an answer to.

And you've had that answer several times, now.
But let's break this out for you. The Chruch is founded on what's called 'black liberation theology'. That theology is supposedly started by one James Cone. Mr. Cone is held by Wright to be the father of his own teachings.

So, let's look seriously at the teachings of Mr Cone, so as to get a feel for how foundational what Wright, his student, has been preaching, shall we?

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”

“The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”

“The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people.”

“All white men are responsible for white oppression. ”

“Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’”

“Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”

“Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it.”

“What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. ”

” Jesus Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.”

Any questions?

Not only does this defeat your point, Mike, but also it raises serious questions about Obama's statements at his press conference this afternoon, and labels it an act of desperation on the part of Obama.

Only if the videos in question and the statements made recently are representative of some significant number of his sermons while he was the pastor of Obama's church, which is of course what I was trying to get an answer to.

Or, to put it more simply, was the church marketing the controversial sermons, or was the church marketing all the sermons, and then someone else cherry-picked which ones were news?

Tell me; What that he said at the press club yesterday was out of line in the slightest with what he said in those supposedly cherry picked sermons?

THe answer is nada. Not one thing was different; Wright said nothing new, there.

Not only does this defeat your point, Mike, but also it raises serious questions about Obama's statements at his press conference this afternoon, and labels it an act of desperation on the part of Obama.

No, no, no, no. These sermons were on videos that the church itself was marketing!

In light of Grewgill's claim that most of the recent sermons have been available on video, I'd like to ask, James, whether the ones you are talking about where just 3 of these from among the many produced, or did the church compile just those 3 into a kind of "Jeremiah Wright's greatest hits" promo?

Or, to put it more simply, was the church marketing the controversial sermons, or was the church marketing all the sermons, and then someone else cherry-picked which ones were news?

Marxist would be far closer.

Marx is no more dangerous than Machiavelli or Locke.

Still, all this leaves aside the point of evdience already entered a reards the degree of influeince of Wright over Obama. Clearly, Wright had a major role in defining Obama. How is that not something needful of national discussion, and even argument?

I had a minister who was someone I turned to on questions of faith and morality, who officiated my own wedding, and who I generally consider a good friend. He has said things in the past that I wouldn't want to be associated with, but those things never defined him as I knew him. If those things did turn out to define him as he actually is, I would have a hard time believing it, and I would have a hard time rejecting our long standing friendship because of it. I can see in this controversy my own life and relationships, and I would no sooner call Obama a racist that I would call myself one.

Maybe you just never had a relationship with your pastors like that, maybe you were married by a justice of the peace, or a ship's captain, or maybe you're not married at all. For whatever reason, you don't see your own relationships here, so you are free to criticize them, to blame them, and to think so badly of them.

Maybe you've just gone to bad churches, your previous admissions seem to indicate that may be the case, but from my experience the pastor of a church does not define the church, and he certainly doesn't define the parishioners.

That point is arguable, to some degree... and it depends in large degree to the pastor in question. Still, all this leaves aside the point of evdience already entered a reards the degree of influeince of Wright over Obama. Clearly, Wright had a major role in defining Obama. How is that not something needful of national discussion, and even argument?

Chomsky is a professor at MIT. These aren't exactly shadowy anarchists we're talking about.

No, they're rather overt in their views, which I certainly would not label as anarchist, by any stretch. Marxist would be far closer.