As we watch the Obama Hope-and-Change fraud collapse in on itself a garden
industry is springing up with the purpose of psychoanalyzing those who are
critical of Wright.
The criticism of Wright, we learn, is a function of our own prejudices and
has nothing to do with Mr. Obama’s politics, statements, business
associates, wife, friends, or pastor. You, too, associate with unseemly
people. You, too, possess offensive beliefs. You, too, have said things
which would lead to your public pillorying if you were running for
president. You certainly have no right to criticize Mr. Obama. If you are
critical of Mr. Obama, it is because of your own prejudices...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken
Now, I don't have any particular liking for Obama (though I dislike
him far less than Clinton or McCain), but his views are clearly
different from his (ex-?) pastor's. Why should he be held responsible
for what an acquaintance said, regardless of whether or not those
things are offensive? Why do we seem to expect such uniformity of
opinion among his family and friends that their statements reflect
upon him?
Of course, I have been having difficulty understanding why people have
gotten upset about what Reverend Wright said. I've watched those
sermons, and he basically said "9/11 was an instance of blowback" and
"Hillary Clinton can't sympathize with black people as well as Obama".
These are debatable, but neither offensive nor far-fetched. Even the
"God damn America" bit made sense in context.
You forgot the bit about how the US created the AIDS virus to attack
blacks. And all the other race-baiting. Wright wants to set the whole
race issue in America back fifty years.
In a lot of ways and a lot places, it's still in 1964 in America.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Mostly in the minds of race-baiting Demagogues and Democrats.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:44:28 -0700, chibiabos wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9A95CB48A7...@216.151.153.21>, Fred Stone
> > <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Johnson <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:6e5e589e-a0e7-4bd2...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On May 5, 2:02 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >> >> http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/it_s_not_you_it_s_us
> >> >>
> >> >> As we watch the Obama Hope-and-Change fraud collapse in on itself a
> >> >> garden
> >> >
> >> >> industry is springing up with the purpose of psychoanalyzing those
> >> >> who are
> >> >
> >> >> critical of Wright.
> >> >>
> >> >> The criticism of Wright, we learn, is a function of our own
> >> >> prejudices and
> >> >
> >> >> has nothing to do with Mr. Obama?s politics, statements, business
> >> >> associates, wife, friends, or pastor. You, too, associate with
> >> >> unseemly people. You, too, possess offensive beliefs. You, too, have
> >> >> said things which would lead to your public pillorying if you were
> >> >> running for president. You certainly have no right to criticize Mr.
> >> >> Obama. If you are critical of Mr. Obama, it is because of your own
> >> >> prejudices...
> >> >
> >> > Now, I don't have any particular liking for Obama (though I dislike
> >> > him far less than Clinton or McCain), but his views are clearly
> >> > different from his (ex-?) pastor's. Why should he be held responsible
> >> > for what an acquaintance said, regardless of whether or not those
> >> > things are offensive? Why do we seem to expect such uniformity of
> >> > opinion among his family and friends that their statements reflect
> >> > upon him?
> >> >
> >> > Of course, I have been having difficulty understanding why people
> >> > have gotten upset about what Reverend Wright said. I've watched those
> >> > sermons, and he basically said "9/11 was an instance of blowback" and
> >> > "Hillary Clinton can't sympathize with black people as well as
> >> > Obama". These are debatable, but neither offensive nor far-fetched.
> >> > Even the "God damn America" bit made sense in context.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You forgot the bit about how the US created the AIDS virus to attack
> >> blacks. And all the other race-baiting. Wright wants to set the whole
> >> race issue in America back fifty years.
> >
> > In a lot of ways and a lot places, it's still in 1964 in America.
> >
>
> Mostly in the minds of race-baiting Demagogues and Democrats.
Spoken like the white man we've all come to know and love.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
I'm glad that you're proud to be a racist. Everybody needs to be proud of
something.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
> Now, I don't have any particular liking forObama(though I dislike
> him far less than Clinton or McCain), but his views are clearly
> different from his (ex-?) pastor's.
Which is why it took him two decades to take a stand against
those views?
Please. That's an excuse -- not even a good one -- but hardly a
reasonable explanation.
Do the Google thing on Obama and his church. You'll find PLENTY
of accusations of racism surrounding the church dating BEFORE
the Rev. Wright scandal broke, BEFORE even 2008.
Heck, even Rev. Wright gave Obama some grief for lying his sorry
ass off, pretending to be all "shocked" and everything.
Anyways, here, from AUGUST OF 2007:
: Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the
: campaign trail that America needs a new consensus
: based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to
: attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor
: routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United
: States of White America."
:
: In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when
: these statements were made on July 22.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml
2007. Again: 2007. So in August of 2007 it was already
clear that Rev. Wright is a blatent racist, and that Obama
knew it. Obama had no problems with it. In fact, Obama named
Wright his spiritual advisor.
So when did Obama LIE HIS UNETHICAL ASS OFF and
pretend that Wright's racism was all news to him?
Oh, yes: That was APRIL OF 2008!
And, just in case, here's Rev. Wright speaking on March 2,
2007, MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE OBAMA PRETENDED
TO BE SURPRISED by Wright's views.
I'll give you the tail end of the question Wright was responding
to MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE OBAMA PRETENDED
HE DIDN'T KNOW that Wright was a racist lunatic. Don't worry,
I'll inlcude the URL and you can read the entire transcript
yourself:
QUESTION
: Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a
: church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that
: church racist?
WRIGHT RESPONDS:
: No, we would call it Christianity. We've been saying that
: since there was a white Christianity; we've been saying
: that ever since white Christians took part in the slave
: trade; we've been saying that ever since they had
: churches in slave castles.
:
: We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to
: live in white America, the United States of white
: America. That's not the issue; you're missing the issue.
Oh. And Rev. Wright said all these things -- and more --
on television. It was at a private function, it wasn't someplace
where it was easy to miss -- Barack Obama's spiritual
advisor was on television spewing his crazy racism more than
a year before Obama pretended that he never knew about
Wright's racism.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html
don't like Fox "news"? Neither do I! Here's something from
MSNBC on the subject, and it dates to the very day that
Obama officially became a candidate for President.
NEWSMAX? You're quoting NEWSMAX?
What's next? WND? Matt Drudge? Ann Coulter?
You do know, don't you, that NewsMax was behind "The Strange Death of
Vincent Foster: An Investigation"?
So if you're going to believe NewsMax, you have to conclude Hillary and
Bill had Vince Foster murdered.