Ray Nagin needs to go - Page 2

Alex · 01-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Did not the founders of pretty much every religion claim to speak for and/or to God?

Personally, I do think they were all delusional but I think that of anybody who simply thinks god exists at all. Or is it only nuts to think that god is still talking to people in this day an age?

It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person? That God, perhaps, spent the years 50 BCE to 1876 CE in an anger management seminar and has emerged a much nicer person?

I'm afraid I don't see why Nagin's comment about an angry god are so ridiculous (though I, of course, think they are for more fundamental reasons).

lizziebith · 01-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Things happen. People theorize as to why. No one knows. There may not be a reason why. And no one knows the mind of God.

I'm scared...this liberal likey what scaegles say. When do get my warm cap for that stay in Hades?

Gemini Cricket · 01-17-2006, 01:40 PM

Speaking as someone who is brown, I am not offended by the chocolate remark. I myself am a light milk chocolate. When in Hawai'i, I am dark chocolate. Sometimes I am coffee colored. Ralphie is white chocolate.

scaeagles · 01-17-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person?

I can't speak to what all religeons profess, but in Christian theology, I would again figure it is the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant.

Cadaverous Pallor · 01-17-2006, 01:50 PM

I see Alex's point. I'd have to say sure, it's possible that God is punishing people all the time with horrible things. But that doesn't mean that I could tell punishment from happenstance, or that anyone else could, either.

The religious side of me says that if God wanted to punish someone, or a group of people, then that someone or group would have to realize it themselves. If a person is a thief and an earthquake causes everything they own to be destroyed, they may say to themselves, "God is telling me to be a better person" and turn their life around (and this may be God's plan all along). If I go up to someone after an earthquake destoys everything they own and tell THEM "God is telling YOU to be a better person", then that person isn't going to say "Oh, hey, thanks for translating that for me, here I was just thinking that I was unlucky." There may even be people whose lives were utterly changed by Katrina that are now saying to themselves "God wanted me to start over" or "God was showing me the error of my ways". I'm willing to bet that there are plenty who are doing better for themselves because of it. But that's their own affair.

In short, let God do his own lesson-teaching, and it's beyond anyone else's ability (or business) to help God out with that.

wendybeth · 01-17-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Speaking as someone who is brown, I am not offended by the chocolate remark. I myself am a light milk chocolate. When in Hawai'i, I am dark chocolate. Sometimes I am coffee colored. Ralphie is white chocolate.

Yeah, but I'm skim milk. Does that mean I wouldn't be welcome there?

It's easier to blame God than yourself for failures- he was the Mayor, and his city was destroyed on his watch. Of course, since God did it, that totally absolves Nagin for any part he may had had in the devastation and the aftermath.

Maybe he could have a chocolate sale to finance his new city?

Drince88 · 01-17-2006, 07:27 PM

Oh, this one was a LOT of fun at work today!

One theory is that he can't justify not running for re-election, but doesn't really want to keep the job, so he's seeing how many people he can alienate so that he doesn't win the election. A big part of that will depend A LOT on who is running against him.

He also had quite a conversation with Dr. King about the state of things - including shootings at the second-line the previous day, black-on-black crime, the African-American community not taking care of their women or children.

For those of you who want to see the speech - here's a link (it's about 8 minutes)

He did have some decent things to say - he just lost a TON of credibility as a 'leader' (if he had a ton to lose) by some of it.

But the up-side is, I may know what I'm going to do for Mardi Gras this year!

As I was looking to see if I could find a transcript of the speech, I did run across this article that postulated the amount of damage if the levees had done what they were SUPPOSED to be designed to do. I'm not sure if these postulations assumed that the barge did or didn't run into the one levee (I can't remember which one that was on).

I can usually look at a few articles on the website before I have to 'sign in'.

Jazzman · 01-17-2006, 07:40 PM

Nagin has already proven what a clueless idiot he is, so his comments don’t surprise me much, and it’s hard to be offended by something so absurd anyhow. His comments are as laughable as he is. What does offend me, however, is the lack of outrage, or even minimal public debate about them. As scaeagles pointed out, if any white public figure had stated that their city would become a white town because that’s what God wanted, you’d find every minority leader in the nation flying out of the woodwork, raging for his head. But a black man says something like this and it’s, “Eh, no big deal. He’s just a dork.” I cannot stand double standards, and this sheds a bright light on one of the biggest and ugliest ones in America today.

How sad that this moron made these comments on the day we celebrate Martin Luther King, a true civil rights leader who preached equality, peace and tolerance, and referred to whites as his white brothers and sisters. Poor man must be rolling over in his grave these days.

Drince88 · 01-17-2006, 07:52 PM

There's been quite a bit of debate about it around here - but you're right, Jazzman

Alex · 01-17-2006, 08:15 PM

Is it the word "chocolate" that is offensive or the underlying principle? Because ever since the hurricane I've heard concerns that blacks will be redeveloped out of New Orleans.

Because if the word "chocolate" doesn't offend me when browsing porn I don't see why it should offend me when discussing economic redevelopment.

Maybe if he'd said:

"This is either going to be a chocolate city or a cracker city. It can't be both because as everybody knows chocolate doesn't go with crackers. Cookies, yes. Definitely cake. So maybe the chocolate could go with something like a cookie or cake, but I'm not really so sure that chocolate goes with fig newtons.

Maybe graham crackers. They have chocolate graham crackers don't they? Yeah, that's it. We'll develop in a way that joins together the chocolate in New Orleans with the crackers in New Orleans and I'll abdicate in favor of a Billy Graham mayorship. Everybody loves Billy Graham. Here's hoping that cracker don't die before we rebuild."

Surely that would have been a message of unity that everybody could rally around.

01-17-2006, 01:22 PM	#11
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Did not the founders of pretty much every religion claim to speak for and/or to God? Personally, I do think they were all delusional but I think that of anybody who simply thinks god exists at all. Or is it only nuts to think that god is still talking to people in this day an age? It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person? That God, perhaps, spent the years 50 BCE to 1876 CE in an anger management seminar and has emerged a much nicer person? I'm afraid I don't see why Nagin's comment about an angry god are so ridiculous (though I, of course, think they are for more fundamental reasons).
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:40 PM	#13
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Speaking as someone who is brown, I am not offended by the chocolate remark. I myself am a light milk chocolate. When in Hawai'i, I am dark chocolate. Sometimes I am coffee colored. Ralphie is white chocolate.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:50 PM	#15
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I see Alex's point. I'd have to say sure, it's possible that God is punishing people all the time with horrible things. But that doesn't mean that I could tell punishment from happenstance, or that anyone else could, either. The religious side of me says that if God wanted to punish someone, or a group of people, then that someone or group would have to realize it themselves. If a person is a thief and an earthquake causes everything they own to be destroyed, they may say to themselves, "God is telling me to be a better person" and turn their life around (and this may be God's plan all along). If I go up to someone after an earthquake destoys everything they own and tell THEM "God is telling YOU to be a better person", then that person isn't going to say "Oh, hey, thanks for translating that for me, here I was just thinking that I was unlucky." There may even be people whose lives were utterly changed by Katrina that are now saying to themselves "God wanted me to start over" or "God was showing me the error of my ways". I'm willing to bet that there are plenty who are doing better for themselves because of it. But that's their own affair. In short, let God do his own lesson-teaching, and it's beyond anyone else's ability (or business) to help God out with that. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 07:27 PM	#17
Drince88 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 481	Oh, this one was a LOT of fun at work today! One theory is that he can't justify not running for re-election, but doesn't really want to keep the job, so he's seeing how many people he can alienate so that he doesn't win the election. A big part of that will depend A LOT on who is running against him. He also had quite a conversation with Dr. King about the state of things - including shootings at the second-line the previous day, black-on-black crime, the African-American community not taking care of their women or children. For those of you who want to see the speech - here's a link (it's about 8 minutes) He did have some decent things to say - he just lost a TON of credibility as a 'leader' (if he had a ton to lose) by some of it. But the up-side is, I may know what I'm going to do for Mardi Gras this year! As I was looking to see if I could find a transcript of the speech, I did run across this article that postulated the amount of damage if the levees had done what they were SUPPOSED to be designed to do. I'm not sure if these postulations assumed that the barge did or didn't run into the one levee (I can't remember which one that was on). I can usually look at a few articles on the website before I have to 'sign in'.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 07:40 PM	#18
Jazzman Sax God Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Portland's Tijuana Posts: 510	Nagin has already proven what a clueless idiot he is, so his comments don’t surprise me much, and it’s hard to be offended by something so absurd anyhow. His comments are as laughable as he is. What does offend me, however, is the lack of outrage, or even minimal public debate about them. As scaeagles pointed out, if any white public figure had stated that their city would become a white town because that’s what God wanted, you’d find every minority leader in the nation flying out of the woodwork, raging for his head. But a black man says something like this and it’s, “Eh, no big deal. He’s just a dork.” I cannot stand double standards, and this sheds a bright light on one of the biggest and ugliest ones in America today. How sad that this moron made these comments on the day we celebrate Martin Luther King, a true civil rights leader who preached equality, peace and tolerance, and referred to whites as his white brothers and sisters. Poor man must be rolling over in his grave these days.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 07:52 PM	#19
Drince88 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 481	There's been quite a bit of debate about it around here - but you're right, Jazzman
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 08:15 PM	#20
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Is it the word "chocolate" that is offensive or the underlying principle? Because ever since the hurricane I've heard concerns that blacks will be redeveloped out of New Orleans. Because if the word "chocolate" doesn't offend me when browsing porn I don't see why it should offend me when discussing economic redevelopment. Maybe if he'd said: "This is either going to be a chocolate city or a cracker city. It can't be both because as everybody knows chocolate doesn't go with crackers. Cookies, yes. Definitely cake. So maybe the chocolate could go with something like a cookie or cake, but I'm not really so sure that chocolate goes with fig newtons. Maybe graham crackers. They have chocolate graham crackers don't they? Yeah, that's it. We'll develop in a way that joins together the chocolate in New Orleans with the crackers in New Orleans and I'll abdicate in favor of a Billy Graham mayorship. Everybody loves Billy Graham. Here's hoping that cracker don't die before we rebuild." Surely that would have been a message of unity that everybody could rally around.
	Submit to Quotes