Ray Nagin needs to go

Ghoulish Delight · 01-17-2006, 10:03 AM

I sincerely hope he gets voted out in April. Is anyone else as offended by his most recent comments as I am? Let's examine them, shall we?

Quote:

"I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day," Nagin said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech. "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be."

And by way of pathetically trying to justify the "chocolate city" crap...

Quote:

"How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about," he said.

Now, that's marginally offensive, actually quite laughable. I'm don't even want to get into the debate about public figures using such questionable racial terms...it's this next bit that really has me going.

Quote:

In his speech, Nagin also said "God is mad at America," in part because he does not approve "of us being in Iraq under false pretenses."

"He is sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it is destroying and putting stress on this country," Nagin said.

Did I miss something? Was he posessed by Pat Robertson while I wasn't looking?

That sh!t angers me. What an irresponsible, pompous comment to make.

scaeagles · 01-17-2006, 10:57 AM

I was going to post something about this in the Pat Robertson thread, but glad this one was started.

I found his whole "chocolate" definition to be pretty funny. Like "oops - I gotta figure out some way to cover myself" and this was the best he couild come up with. He thinks anyone will believe that? Whatever makes him feel better. If a white mayor somewhere talked about wanting to build a "lily white" city, and then justified it by saying he likes flowers and wants a huge botanical garden to draw tourists, he'd be branded a racist, and rightfully so.

And I actually found his "God is mad at the US" comment funny, too, but only because I think the man is so completely inept that I can't take anything he says seriously.

Cadaverous Pallor · 01-17-2006, 12:43 PM

I'd bet that all the white people that can actually rebuild and stay are going to vote him out, no matter what "God wants"

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-17-2006, 12:57 PM

I think that once someone has made a definitive statement as to who among us is to blame for a natural disaster, pretty much everything else that they say can be written off.

lizziebith · 01-17-2006, 01:02 PM

I really have issues with this "God" dude and all his smitey uncoolness.

Prudence · 01-17-2006, 01:04 PM

So, God smote New Orleans because of hedonism in the city and US participation in Iraq.

I think what we can learn from this is that God is multi-tasking.

Alex · 01-17-2006, 01:05 PM

Now, I'm not one of them, but why is it so unreasonable for people who believe that the Old Testament approximates actual history to believe that in modern times similar calamities speak to god's state of mind?

As for whether Nagin gets reelected the thing I need to know is how his comments played in New Orleans. It doesn't much matter how they play in San Francisco, New York City, or on the cable network news.

Not Afraid · 01-17-2006, 01:10 PM

Personally, I don't find the "chocolate" comment offensive but I find his lame explanation ridiculous.

And, people who claim to speak for God are lunatics and make me wish we still had asylums to put them in. (Not really, but some people are just NUTS!) What I don't understand is why the general public can just accept that some doofus has been "chosen" to speak for God. Don't they realize that God can make better choices than that?

lizziebith · 01-17-2006, 01:13 PM

It's not unreasonable for THEM to believe it...but crimeny! This is not Old Testament culture! And we are all sharing the same air here in the mighty 2006. By which I mean that some folks need to learn some things. Get up to speed. Join us in these new-fangled times. Why do I think this post will be one of those I regret...

scaeagles · 01-17-2006, 01:18 PM

I'm no theologian, but I would suspect that it could have something to do with the "old covenant" vs. the "new covenant", grace and forgiveness through Christ rather than through our own actions. There were also plenty of "bad" places throughout the OT that were not....smote? smitten? smitted?.....

I think what it comes donw to with Robertson and Nagin (in this instance) is the chutzpah to to profess that they know the mind of God and why something bad would happen.

I, for one, am more in line with the teachings of Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes - ""I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility; there is the righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in wickedness." (ch. 7 v. 15)

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.

01-17-2006, 10:57 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I was going to post something about this in the Pat Robertson thread, but glad this one was started. I found his whole "chocolate" definition to be pretty funny. Like "oops - I gotta figure out some way to cover myself" and this was the best he couild come up with. He thinks anyone will believe that? Whatever makes him feel better. If a white mayor somewhere talked about wanting to build a "lily white" city, and then justified it by saying he likes flowers and wants a huge botanical garden to draw tourists, he'd be branded a racist, and rightfully so. And I actually found his "God is mad at the US" comment funny, too, but only because I think the man is so completely inept that I can't take anything he says seriously.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 12:43 PM	#3
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I'd bet that all the white people that can actually rebuild and stay are going to vote him out, no matter what "God wants" __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 12:57 PM	#4
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	I think that once someone has made a definitive statement as to who among us is to blame for a natural disaster, pretty much everything else that they say can be written off.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:02 PM	#5
lizziebith Wishing these titles could be longe Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pearblossom CA Posts: 984	I really have issues with this "God" dude and all his smitey uncoolness. __________________ $ DO \|\| !$ DO ; TRY TRY: COMMAND NOT FOUND
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:04 PM	#6
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	So, God smote New Orleans because of hedonism in the city and US participation in Iraq. I think what we can learn from this is that God is multi-tasking. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:05 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Now, I'm not one of them, but why is it so unreasonable for people who believe that the Old Testament approximates actual history to believe that in modern times similar calamities speak to god's state of mind? As for whether Nagin gets reelected the thing I need to know is how his comments played in New Orleans. It doesn't much matter how they play in San Francisco, New York City, or on the cable network news.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:10 PM	#8
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Personally, I don't find the "chocolate" comment offensive but I find his lame explanation ridiculous. And, people who claim to speak for God are lunatics and make me wish we still had asylums to put them in. (Not really, but some people are just NUTS!) What I don't understand is why the general public can just accept that some doofus has been "chosen" to speak for God. Don't they realize that God can make better choices than that?
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:13 PM	#9
lizziebith Wishing these titles could be longe Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pearblossom CA Posts: 984	It's not unreasonable for THEM to believe it...but crimeny! This is not Old Testament culture! And we are all sharing the same air here in the mighty 2006. By which I mean that some folks need to learn some things. Get up to speed. Join us in these new-fangled times. Why do I think this post will be one of those I regret... __________________ $ DO \|\| !$ DO ; TRY TRY: COMMAND NOT FOUND
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:18 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I'm no theologian, but I would suspect that it could have something to do with the "old covenant" vs. the "new covenant", grace and forgiveness through Christ rather than through our own actions. There were also plenty of "bad" places throughout the OT that were not....smote? smitten? smitted?..... I think what it comes donw to with Robertson and Nagin (in this instance) is the chutzpah to to profess that they know the mind of God and why something bad would happen. I, for one, am more in line with the teachings of Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes - ""I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility; there is the righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in wickedness." (ch. 7 v. 15) 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.
	Submit to Quotes