Obama Exposed As Black

blatham wrote:

Here's a cute item from wired...

Quote:
This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/report-recruit.html

Now, none of the folks I'd named previously (and I'd imagine no one on a2k, though who can say for sure...craven understood several years ago that the Pentagon or some intel operation was posing as Iraqi 'bloggers' as a propaganda technique) is on anyone's payroll. Just quality control alone rules that out.

The point is, rather, that these folks are sitting at the receiving end of propaganda operations and mechanisms of which they remain happily uninformed.

You do understand that those blogs and bloggers are aimed at our enemies, right? That what the article is discussing the use of propaganda to fight the anti-American propaganda perpetuated on the Internet. At least I hope you do.

Of course, I can also see how you'd think it could be nothing more then a conspiracy perpetuated by Fox News to brain-wash the masses, so I could be wrong in assuming you realize what that article you posted is about.

0 Replies

Besides, someone needs to fight against this:

Quote:

ABOUT DAILY KOS

Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.

Daily Kos has grown in those five years to the premier political community in the United States, with traffic of about 600,000 daily visits. (Click on the rainbow box at the bottom of the page for up-to-date stats.) Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. But, even more exciting than that, tens of thousands of regular Americans have used Daily Kos to lend their voice to a political world once the domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.

Daily Kos is run by a staff of two -- Moulitsas and a programmer. In 2007, parent company Kos Media, LLC began a fellowship program to help fund a new generation of progressive activists. About a dozen contributing editors contribute content for the site, with 3-4 new editors being chosen from the Daily Kos community every year.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

Ticomaya wrote:

Now I realize this may be a difficult pill for you to swallow, because I suspect you believe the Rockstar can do no wrong.

I normally gloss over these things because I don't have a lot of time to spend on them, but re-reading these I have to ask: Tico, do you think it's possible to debate this without resorting to calling my judgment into question? Before I even got a chance to respond to your argument you pre-emptively dismissed me as a partisanly biased koolaid drinker. Could it be that I just have a different opinion than you? I give you the benefit of the doubt often -- maybe I've been too generous.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

Ticomaya wrote:
Now I realize this may be a difficult pill for you to swallow, because I suspect you believe the Rockstar can do no wrong.

I normally gloss over these things because I don't have a lot of time to spend on them, but re-reading these I have to ask: Tico, do you think it's possible to debate this without resorting to calling my judgment into question? Before I even got a chance to respond to your argument you pre-emptively dismissed me as a partisanly biased koolaid drinker. Could it be that I just have a different opinion than you? I give you the benefit of the doubt often -- maybe I've been too generous.

I did find yours initially to be a highly partisan and biased remark, and one that you continued to try and bolster. Even after I showed you the link to factcheck.org, that the attack was a "rank falsehood," you continued to say you knew what McCain said, and it was appropriate to attack him for it. You continued to insist that Obama was attacking McCain fairly, and I up until I showed you that Obama, in fact, had not.

It had all of the appearance of something someone blindly devoted to Obama would say. ("Not my Obama.") Hence my "Rockstar" remark. And, let's be honest .... there's a lot of Obama koolaid drinkers around these parts.

But I admit that my accusations of blind partisanship would have been better directed at someone other than you, FD, as that is not an apt description.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:
Here's a cute item from wired...

Quote:
This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/report-recruit.html

Now, none of the folks I'd named previously (and I'd imagine no one on a2k, though who can say for sure...craven understood several years ago that the Pentagon or some intel operation was posing as Iraqi 'bloggers' as a propaganda technique) is on anyone's payroll. Just quality control alone rules that out.

The point is, rather, that these folks are sitting at the receiving end of propaganda operations and mechanisms of which they remain happily uninformed.

You do understand that those blogs and bloggers are aimed at our enemies, right? That what the article is discussing the use of propaganda to fight the anti-American propaganda perpetuated on the Internet. At least I hope you do.

Of course, I can also see how you'd think it could be nothing more then a conspiracy perpetuated by Fox News to brain-wash the masses, so I could be wrong in assuming you realize what that article you posted is about.

McG

I did not post my previous posts in order to argue with you or others whom I described as not able to perceive what I described. There's little if any good likely to come of it, experience tells me. What I wrote was for the consideration of folks not within your community.

I'm sorry. As you know I hold an inexplicable fondness for you even if the value of my affinity might be worth a packet of gum or cheese doodles. But on this topic, we aren't going to get very far simply because you won't stretch your information sources far enough or broad enough.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But on this topic, we aren't going to get very far simply because you won't stretch your information sources far enough or broad enough.

Give it a rest. You aren't correct merely because you devotedly read salon.com and the NY Review of Books on a semi-regular basis.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McG

I did not post my previous posts in order to argue with you or others whom I described as not able to perceive what I described. There's little if any good likely to come of it, experience tells me. What I wrote was for the consideration of folks not within your community.

I'm sorry. As you know I hold an inexplicable fondness for you even if the value of my affinity might be worth a packet of gum or cheese doodles. But on this topic, we aren't going to get very far simply because you won't stretch your information sources far enough or broad enough.

Or left enough apparently. Do you have any idea how many liberal news sources I have to wade through and read to build up an argument against them? Do you know why I listen to NPR daily and grind my teeth through every Daniel Shorr eviseration of the right? Because I want to know what the other side thinks and where they are coming from.

I realize that you want to think that the mass media is nothing more then a branch of the neo-con tree, but it isn't. It's just to the right of you. If you ask me, they are a bunch of liberal weenies feeding on the democratic teat.

You want to see propaganda, so you find it. Others, like me, see your propaganda as a news article, or informative as to what is going on. Fox News is not a republican sounding board, nor is CNN a liberal home world. They are media sources trying to make a buck by appealing to a demographic and selling commercials while attempting to broadcast news and opinion.

So, keep up the hard work and I will continue debunking it best I can. And someday perhaps, we can share a bag of cheese doodles.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

Ticomaya wrote:
Now I realize this may be a difficult pill for you to swallow, because I suspect you believe the Rockstar can do no wrong.

I normally gloss over these things because I don't have a lot of time to spend on them, but re-reading these I have to ask: Tico, do you think it's possible to debate this without resorting to calling my judgment into question? Before I even got a chance to respond to your argument you pre-emptively dismissed me as a partisanly biased koolaid drinker. Could it be that I just have a different opinion than you? I give you the benefit of the doubt often -- maybe I've been too generous.

I did find yours initially to be a highly partisan and biased remark, and one that you continued to try and bolster. Even after I showed you the link to factcheck.org, that the attack was a "rank falsehood," you continued to say you knew what McCain said, and it was appropriate to attack him for it. You continued to insist that Obama was attacking McCain fairly, and I up until I showed you that Obama, in fact, had not.

It had all of the appearance of something someone blindly devoted to Obama would say. ("Not my Obama.") Hence my "Rockstar" remark. And, let's be honest .... there's a lot of Obama koolaid drinkers around these parts.

But I admit that my accusations of blind partisanship would have been better directed at someone other than you, FD, as that is not an apt description.

freeduck

I'd advise you to carefully look at the Annenburg claim and consider whether the Korea analogy is appropriate. Note that the 'rank falsehood' claim is not merely an opinion but that this opinion rests upon whether that analogy is valid. And you might want to get an attestation from Tico that he has always granted this level of authority to the opinions of factcheck org.

ps
McG and I went into this matter here... http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=113650&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

0 Replies

Do you dispute this particular opinion of factcheck.org, blatham? Or are you just furiously stirring the ****?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I did find yours initially to be a highly partisan and biased remark, and one that you continued to try and bolster.

Which remark, exactly, was so obviously biased and partisan? The debate is whether going after him for saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years is fair game or a smear. I stand by that it's not a smear.

Quote:

Even after I showed you the link to factcheck.org, that the attack was a "rank falsehood," you continued to say you knew what McCain said, and it was appropriate to attack him for it. You continued to insist that Obama was attacking McCain fairly, and I up until I showed you that Obama, in fact, had not.

I think you need to read that again. It can be argued about whether or not staying in Iraq for 100 years necessarily means 100 years of war, but McCain himself had to clarify his remarks as it was not obvious. And Obama has both misrepresented those remarks, as you quoted, and correctly quoted him in many other instances. But this didn't start out about Obama at all -- he's just the one I remembered attacking him for his statement about Iraq, and what I remember is from a debate several months ago. The fact that he later drew incorrect inferences from that (war not occupation) is accepted. But even suggesting that a 100 year occupation in Iraq is acceptable is ripe for attack.

Again, I'm arguing the distinction between a character smear and an attack on issues, fair or otherwise, not whether or not Obama or Democrats were fair about what McCain meant by his remarks. For reference, you might want to take it back to McG's post that I was responding to in the first place.

Quote:

But I admit that my accusations of blind partisanship would have been better directed at someone other than you, FD, as that is not an apt description.

Ok, then, I'll get off your back.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

freeduck

I'd advise you to carefully look at the Annenburg claim and consider whether the Korea analogy is appropriate. Note that the 'rank falsehood' claim is not merely an opinion but that this opinion rests upon whether that analogy is valid. And you might want to get an attestation from Tico that he has always granted this level of authority to the opinions of factcheck org.

ps
McG and I went into this matter here... http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=113650&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

Thanks for the link, I'll divert any more responses there. I was trying to avoid an argument about the validity of the attack because I thought it was secondary to my point, which had to do with McG classifying attacking McCain for his own words as similar in kind to attacking Obama for Wright's.

0 Replies

Howard Dean, in charge of the DNC had this to say:

Quote:

While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

In 2004, he had this to say:

Quote:

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Is he just a hypocrite, or the worse kind of propagandist out there? You know, the kind Blatham rails against on the right?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I did find yours initially to be a highly partisan and biased remark, and one that you continued to try and bolster.

Which remark, exactly, was so obviously biased and partisan? The debate is whether going after him for saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years is fair game or a smear. I stand by that it's not a smear.

You referred to a 100 years war (I know ... you were quoting McG, but that was the post I was referring to).

Quote:

Quote:
Even after I showed you the link to factcheck.org, that the attack was a "rank falsehood," you continued to say you knew what McCain said, and it was appropriate to attack him for it. You continued to insist that Obama was attacking McCain fairly, and I up until I showed you that Obama, in fact, had not.

I think you need to read that again. It can be argued about whether or not staying in Iraq for 100 years necessarily means 100 years of war, but McCain himself had to clarify his remarks as it was not obvious. And Obama has both misrepresented those remarks, as you quoted, and correctly quoted him in many other instances. But this didn't start out about Obama at all -- he's just the one I remembered attacking him for his statement about Iraq, and what I remember is from a debate several months ago. The fact that he later drew incorrect inferences from that (war not occupation) is accepted. But even suggesting that a 100 year occupation in Iraq is acceptable is ripe for attack.

Whether he "had" to clarify his remarks is one thing, but there's no question that he did so. Yet despite the clarification, Obama and the DNC continue to spread falsehoods about what he said (Obama has said he thought what he said was fair, and said we could check the youtube video). Obama didn't just say it on February 9, he said it again on February 19, and on February 26.

And you -- apparently -- continue to believe that is fair game, simply because it's not a discussion about McCain's character.

An honest debate about whether a 100 year occupation in Iraq is "acceptable," is fine and is certainly not a "smear", nor is it an "attack," and I have no disagreement with you on that point .... but that's not what we're discussing, is it? At least it's not what I've been discussing.

A lie told often enough becomes truth .... isn't that what many on the left have been complaining about Bush for many years now? And yet we are expected to believe that Obama brings some other approach to the plate? It looks like politics as usual here.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

... On this thread or another, Nimh recently observed that this election was not bringing out the best in us. Elizabeth Drew, writing in the New York Review of Books, said "This election is dividing friends and families like no other I've seen." That's a significant observation, given that Drew has been doing bright political journalism all her adult life and was born in 1935.

Part of what many of us must be trying to get our heads around is, how did we get here? How has it come to be that such depths of passion are presently aroused?

Is this proposition really true? Are the political passions surrounding the Democrat primaries or the coming contest between the candidates in the election really much greater than what has occurred in the past. I think the answer is fairly obvious -- NO. Even a quick and superficial search of materials relating to presidential campaigns of the past century reveals that the contemporary furor is merely typical. The major political parties have their seasons of hotly competed rivalries between opposing factions and others of relatively calm dominance by a single group or faction. However, in nearly every campaign since 1940, one party or the other (sometimes both) has usually been deeply engaged in contests between opposing candidates involving deep conflicts and passions evbery bit as dramatic as those we see today. Examples abound, ranging from 1952 when Senator kefauver entered the Democrat convention having already won 94% ot the delegates needed to secure the nomination in various primaries, and ended up losing the nomination to Adalai Stevenson who entered the convention with almost none.

In that same year an equally bitter struggle went on in the Republican primaries and convention between the very conservative supporters of Senator Taft of Ohio and those supporting Gen Eisenhower in the struggle for the Republican nomination.

Similarly, the elections of 1960, 1968, 1972 and many others saw bitter struggles, either within individual parties or between them, for the Presidency.

blatham wrote:

... It is somewhat clarifying to imagine the immediate present had Romney or Giuliani or another Republican candidate achieved the nomination rather than McCain. I doubt there would be any significant difference to what we are now witnessing.

But remove either Obama or Clinton and a very different picture presents itself. Or, to make the difference even more clear, imagine neither of them running. The left, given the last eight or twenty years, came up to this nomination cycle passionate and mobilized and would surely have been so absent Obama or Clinton, but both of these individuals have fostered particularly acute and serious constituencies. Gender and race are key. That's not a bad thing, it is just a real thing. Can we imagine a Biden/Richardson battle now engendering the same level of internecine passions?

But the swiftboating of Obama was inevitable and predictable to a full 100% certainty. If Clinton comes out ahead, we'll see it again directed against her. And we would have seen it if Biden had won, or Richardson.

It is simply the nature of the modern american right, via it's leading personalities and via the propaganda mechanisms it has established, and via the easy facilitization of modern news media for stoking fears and emotions rather than addressing policy or wonk stuff.

And every day here, we read posts from tico or foxfire or nappy or okie or gunga or McG or real life or others and we have all the evidence we'd ever need to see how an entire segment of the american population has been, and are being, trained to think (and thus perceive) in very particular ways. That training is NOT designed to bring out their better angels. Reaction out of fears and hatreds is the goal.

This is certainly a very comfortable theory that will surely exempt Blatham from any necessity for critical thinking or reexamination of his own beliefs and prejudices. The opposition is composed entirely of well-trained automitons who neither think nor act for themselves, but instead merely follow the dictates of 'the vast right-wing conspiracy' that so invisibly and effectively guides them. His tribe, on the other hand, is composed only of self-reliant, thinking, rational souls who alone know what is really good for everyone. Nonsense.

What was "the swift-boating of Obama"? The phrase of course arises out of the response of his fellow officers to Senator Kerry's false and exaggerated claims about his military service and the truly contemptable and false testimony he gave to a Congressional investigating Committee in the event that first propelled him to national attention and launched his political career. In this case the accusers appear to have been self-motivated by the hypocrisy of the esteemed Senator himself.

Obama's issues with the Rev Wright appear to have arisen out of the probably inevitable media discovery of the character of Wright's sermons and expressed beliefs -- the emergence of this kind of stuff is hardly surprising in any political campaign. It may well have been inevitable, but was it the work of some unseen conservative conspiracy?? Moreover the questions that arose out of the disclosures were, themselves, real and meaningful, given his presentation of himself as a representative of a new approach to racial issues, one that has left the old resentments and bitterness behind.

It is the nature of advocates of big government to prefer discussions "policy or wonk stuff" to more fundamental examinations of whether the government intervention that is at the heart of it is beneficial at all. In this Blatham is merely defining the opposing arguments as evil or invalid instead of confronting or dealing with them. Perhaps a neat trick, but hardly enough to deflect a serious observer.

Nonetheless, all this was a remarkable collection of sophistries.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

McCain doesn't want a 100-year war. However, like GWB, he likes war, and would be a "war president." For instance, I gather from his statements that he would be quite amenable to an imminent attack on Iran.

Nobody "likes" war, especially not those that have fought in one.
For you to say he "likes" war is a serious mischaracterization of him.
And apparently, you have either never served or never fought in a war or you would know better then to make such a stupid statement.

There is a difference between liking war, and being ready to fight one.

Also, please show one instance where he has advocated attacking Iran.
I know he has said he would IF NEEDED, but he has never, to the best of my knowledge, advocated for it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn wrote:
Quote:
Did you see the clip of his "preaching" to his flock that Bill Clinton was "ridin dirty?"

Would you bring your young daughters to any public gathering, let alone a church, where the featured speaker behaved so lewdly?

tico wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, that was just lovely, wasn't it?

Bill wrote (to finn)
Quote:
Does his little hip shake while saying "riding dirty" really offend you that bad? Really?

Possibly finn was morally outraged by the sexuality he references here. Sounds like he was. And it seems as if tico was as well.

But that's a problem with blacks, isn't it? Their sexuality, I mean. So out in the open, so unhidden, so much like farm animals or jungle creatures. It's all so much benearth civilized white peoples' culture and traditions of worship. We understand precisely why good americans have wondered for almost 100 years why black music and dancing is even allowed to be performed at Carnegie or on the radio and tv.

First of all, it appears a jackass has hacked A2K and sent it all akimbo.

Secondly, I would recognize the true jackass who authored these words anywhere --- blatham.

Yes blatham finding a professed teacher of Christian spirituality and morals, dry humping his pulpet offensive is all about my uptight, racist white attitude about the sexually empowered negro.

This has to be one of your most ridiculous posts.

I guarantee you there is no shortage of African-Americans who find Wright's sort of blatantly crude sexual hijinks as offensive, and it is rascist to suggest otherwise.

Are you trying to tell us that the average African-American is A-OK with bringing his or her kids to church on Sunday so they can hear their spiritual pastor shout about "doin to us what he did to Monica Lewinsky," and "Ridin Dirty!" and simulating sex from the alter?

Sorry, but the African-Americans I know would have fled that church with their hands over their kids' ears. I suppose they are all "Toms," right blatham?

One woman I know won't even refer verbatim to Wright's comments concerning how God should damn America. She insists on using "GD" because the full phrase offends her.

I know, she must be a Jemimah.

I've no doubt you didn't find it offensive. You probably found it deliciously droll

It's all about your sensibilities. If you're OK with Right Reverand Wright doing the air nasty in front of his flock, God Bless you. You're probably A-OK with live sex shows in Toronto and Amsterdam, but that's your call.

Just spare us the horse-shite you're suggesting that those of us who are uncomfortable or offended by Wright's lewdness are rascist.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
... On this thread or another, Nimh recently observed that this election was not bringing out the best in us. Elizabeth Drew, writing in the New York Review of Books, said "This election is dividing friends and families like no other I've seen." That's a significant observation, given that Drew has been doing bright political journalism all her adult life and was born in 1935.

Part of what many of us must be trying to get our heads around is, how did we get here? How has it come to be that such depths of passion are presently aroused?
Is this proposition really true? Are the political passions surrounding the Democrat primaries or the coming contest between the candidates in the election really much greater than what has occurred in the past. I think the answer is fairly obvious -- NO.

I disagree. I thing the Democratic race is very unique in terms of the dynamics of the situation in play here. Opposing groups, which the Democrats depend upon, Clinton and her cronies and women voters, vs Obama and his fans and black voters. We will have to wait and see what happens once the final nominee emerges, but I think there are going to be more voters than usual that are going to be angry or simply sit out the election, or vote McCain.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

tico wrote
Quote:
Ah, so if it's "different," we ought to just allow it -- nay, condone it -- because its freedom of expression?

First, it is not a 'freedom of expression' matter. It is a freedom of religious belief and worship matter. How any congregation might choose to understand god or jesus or buddha is entirely the province of THAT congregation. How it might choose to go about worship or celebration of the relationship between parishioners and whatever animating force it believes in is, again, the province of THAT congregation. Your notion, implicit in everything you've written on this point, that your own congregation more properly understands correct beliefs and modes of worship is bigotted, and it is nothing other than bigotted.

Wrong. It is a freedom of expression matter. What I expressed -- using my own freedom of expression privilege -- and what you responded to, was my own personal opinion of Rev. Wright and his apparent predilection towards emulating sexual acts in his sermons. Apparently you believe I am not entitled to voice my opinion on this subject, else you believe my opinion has violated your notion of "freedom of religious belief." In either case, my opinion is probably the majority opinion, in which case your opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes it's true, I question whether a preacher -- white, black, magenta, or green in color -- ought to be humping a lectern as he does his best impression of a rutting Bill Clinton, or a porn actor, while delivering a Sunday sermon.

Well, tough luck. Freedom of religious membership and worship means you don't get to tell other congregations what to do. Just like I don't get to tell you that unless you are dancing during service or unless you are speaking in tongues or unless you drink of the blood of christ then your faith is perverse and profane and that no member of it is worthy for public office.

Well, I'm free to have my opinion on the subject, and I rendered it. You're free to claim I'm all wet, and I'm free to tell you where to stick it.

What a country.

Quote:

Quote:
And you of all people, blatham -- who chastised me just the other day because you felt I was out of line with the majority of opinion in this country on a particular subject -- ought to realize that your belief that a religious leader should feel free to act the way the Rev. Wright did, is not a majority view ... and you should therefore realize your views on the subject are "irrelevant."

You refer, I expect, to a discussion on policy matters for present governance. Those are not liberty or freedom issues. Your constitutional guarantees of freedoms and liberties were constituted precisely to protect minorities, such as religious minorities, from the oppressive incursions from others.

But I'm oppressing nobody. I am free to express my opinion that a respectable preacher shouldn't hump a lectern, and I don't violate anyone's Constitutional rights, or liberty, or freedom when I do so. And if you are still struggling with this concept, I'm available for one on one tutoring, but I must warn you my hourly rate is rather steep.

The issue I refer to is your assertion that because you believed my opinion was a minority opinion, what I thought or said was irrelevant. I do not find your attempt to distinguish it now as germane to "policy" issues but not "liberty" or "freedom" issues, to be the least bit persuasive. You clearly just make this **** up as you go along.

Quote:

Quote:
And for you to claim my "intolerant" view that does not condone sexual gyrations by ministers delivering religious messages in church, is somehow an "anti-black racist sentiment," is beyond the pale.
Putting aside the fact that my views on this subject have nothing to do with skin color, are you saying that such sexually explicit gyrations are a traditional and historical aspect of black religious expression?

How has it come to be the case that you've managed to get a law degree and yet understand your own nation's constitution and your own nation's history and your own faith's history so poorly?

A better question is how has it come to be that you believe you understand my nation's Constitution, to any degree, when it's quite clear you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. You obviously think you have grasped the subject matter, but it's clearly still quite foreign to you. But I would like for you to explain, in detail, exactly how you believe I have violated anyone's Constitutionally protected freedoms of (a) religion, (b) expression, (c) worship, or (d) _____ (you fill in the blank), by saying what I said with regard to my opinion of Rev. Wright. I'll then respond to your argument, point by point.

Quote:

How have you mananged to get so warped in the noggin that institutionalized torture and one or two or three hundred thousand dead in war are justifiable but a demonstration of human sexuality in a black church you don't belong to is cause for more than a mere ten seconds of consideration?

Are you seriously so dense that you still haven't grasped that I don't give a f*ck whether it's a black, white, green, purple, red, or brown church?

I gave it 10 seconds of consideration, but then you kept bringing the matter up, again and again.

Quote:

I have little patience left with you, tico, and you get the quick and simple answer here because more would be a waste of my time.

I don't care, Bernard. You're a pismire. Piss off.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Howard Dean, in charge of the DNC had this to say:

Quote:
While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

In 2004, he had this to say:

Quote:
"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Is he just a hypocrite, or the worse kind of propagandist out there?

Just household hypocrisy will do here. Merely the mirror image of all those Republicans who this year extol the virtue of having a bona fide military veteran and war hero as candidate, when they didnt blanch twice from smearing a Vietnam vet last time round to boost the chances of someone who weaseled his way out of having to go.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

For every mouth piece on the right, there is an equal and opposite mouthpiece on the left spewing the same sewage.

Except that right when you tried, a couple pages ago, to showcase how the liberals do smears just as violently as the right, the first and most egregious example you came up with actually was from a conservative anti-McCain group. And the liberal example of a low attack was widely condemned by the readers of "the mouthpiece" in question - and commondreams is about as far left as you get over there.

No, mud slinging obviously is not a trait belonging solely to the right -- but your attempts to sketch some broad, general equivalence are falling flat. The kind of hypocrisy you just showed up from Dean is bipartisan and bidirectional, for sure. But the real sewage, the kind that Kiley and Sampley engage in, or Mr. Roger "C.U.N.T." Stone, is another matter.

Stone gets a sympathetic portrait in the Weekly Standard ("Roger Stone shows how it's done--again") and guest appearance as analyst for MSNBC; not for the first time. And attacks like the one you quoted by Ted Rall on McCain were absolutely commonplace against Kerry four years ago throughout the conservative blogosphere - but you didnt find half the readers objecting there. There's no equivalence here.

0 Replies

Obama Exposed As Black

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know