Double Standards
Posted by
tgirsch
Katherine at Obsidian Wings says it well:
[I]f a white candidate is affiliated in some fashion with a white religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he’s a nutty preacher, and it’s a one day story or doesn’t make the TV news at all. The white candidate can say: “if he said insulting things about Catholics or Jews, I strongly disagree,” entirely ignore hatred of Muslims, and that’s that. If a black candidate is affiliated with a black religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he’s a nutty BLACK preacher, and it’s a weeklong story & a huge threat to his candidacy. Repeatedly denouncing the preacher’s excessive remarks–in specific terms–and giving the most thoughtful speech about race in America in decades & exhibiting no hatred of whites or anyone else, is not sufficient. A lot of people say there is nothing that Obama can do or say that can excuse his association with a black man who would say those things. Never mind whether Obama was there. Never mind when Obama found out about them. Never mind whether they’re typical of Wright’s sermons–the media cannot be bothered to explore that question at all. Never mind that Obama specifically denounced those remarks, repeatedly. Never mind that Obama obviously doesn’t share those views. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence in his entire public record that he hates America or hates white people, or that he has ever pandered to those sentiments. He is guilty of fraternizing with an angry, scary black man; he is therefore unfit for the presidency.
That is, as far as I’m concerned a huge double standard which is quite obviously a function of Obama’s & Wright’s race–and the fact that Wright’s remarks were directed at the United States & against white people, instead of against a hated minority like Muslims or gay people.
Go read the whole thing.
Yeah, I’m sure if McCain’s spiritual leader said he thought white separatism was OK but only said it once, no one would be talking about that.
Comment 3/20/2008
Of course they would be. But since McCain’s spiritual advisers generally limit their rhetoric to Muslims, gays, Jews, and Catholics, it’s less of an issue, apparently.
Comment 3/20/2008
1. McCain insisted at least three times in two days that (Shi’a) Iran is sponsoring and training (Sunni) al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s been treated with little more than a shrug.
2. McCain actively sought the endorsement of two right-wing preachers, one of who calls the Catholic Church “the great whore” and the anti-Christ and the other of who says that US was established in part to destroy Islam (yes, he said that in so many words); he even flew down to accept the endorsement of the first in person. That has disappeared from the media radar screen.
So frankly, yeah, I think that if “McCain’s spiritual leader said he thought white separatism was OK but only said it once, no one would be talking about that,” at least not for long and not without pundits insisting that McCain was not responsible for what his preacher said.
Comment 3/20/2008
LarryE:
And with that, you shall be “Uncled,” as we lovingly say around here.
To “Uncle” someone is to simply disappear from a thread when the tide turns against you.
Comment 3/20/2008
“1. McCain insisted at least three times in two days that (Shi’a) Iran is sponsoring and training (Sunni) al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s been treated with little more than a shrug.”
Obama should call the president of Canada and complain about McCain’s gaffe.
Comment 3/20/2008
It is really funny and hypocritical for a bunch of atheists to claim that they are upset because some Christians are opposed to Islam. Get real. Nobody is buying your fake tears and pretension of grief that someone dares to state his opposition to the beliefs and actions of another religion. Boo Hoo. Your indignation seems to be stirred only when a Christian says something against Islam. You on the other hand can say any and every vile thing about Christians that come to your perverted minds.
Comment 3/20/2008
It is really funny and hypocritical for a bunch of atheists to claim that they are upset because some Christians are opposed to Islam.
Why is that so funny? “My imaginary friend in the sky can beat up your imaginary friend in the sky” arguments ridiculous, no matter which side is which.
You on the other hand can say any and every vile thing about Christians that come to your perverted minds.
Yes, because I have a long and storied history of vilifying Christians as a group. I’ll call them on their holier-than-thou bullshit, sure, but that’s only “vile” to someone who really believes he’s holier.
Comment 3/20/2008
Even though the reference above includes statements about the Catholic church.
Comment 3/20/2008
I’ll call them on their holier-than-thou bullshit
And that is why Obama was called on it.
A lot of people who are not Republicans say Republicans are racist and homophobic. So when a white preacher reaffirms that position, of course it isn’t newsworthy because it is what everyone expects and says will happen. Obama has been presented as being above all the usual rhetoric.
From the news I have seen, he was viewed with some kind of reverence rarely given to politicians. So, naturally, when the preacher at his church, someone who he has indicated he has great respect for, decides to go off on a rant, of course it will be big news. It is completely different than the image that has been so carefully cultivated. Sharp contrasts are always big news.
It’s like the NY governor. It wasn’t his time with prostitute but rather the fact that while he was presenting a holier than thou image that he was spending time with a prostitute.
Comment 3/20/2008
Morris,
You seem to have confused TG with me. As near as I can tell TG doesn’t hate religion, or even Christianity in particular. Sure, he’s got no respect for it, but that’s only natural.
I on the other hand will happily say that I think Christianity is evil, and it’d be best for the world if that particular blight were to fade away into history. I know less about Islam than about Christianity, so I don’t know it to be as evil.
Also, there’s the simple fact that it’s the Christians who are ruining this country not the Muslims. (Though I sure would bet against them doing so given the chance.)
But go on, keep claiming that you get to make distinctions between your sky ghosts while complaining about those of us who think your superstitions are harmful.
Comment 3/21/2008
Thank you atheists for confirmation of my contention that you atheists are a bunch of hypocrits. You condemn others for saying bad things about religion and then condemn anyone else who says something bad about a religion.
Dan M. your ignorance about Islam is profound. Of course, that is par for the course.
Comment 3/21/2008
‘To “Uncle” someone is to simply disappear from a thread when the tide turns against you.’
Actually, it just don’t usually come back because I know how it will end.
Example, when I say that in his examples 1 is in no way similar. And that 2 was covered quite extensively back when it was news (as opposed to now when it’s, err, olds), i’ll be told I’m wrong. I’ll say I’m right and why. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Comment 3/21/2008
Uncle:
I knew you’d take the bait. Sucker!
You’re right, though, you do know how it will end: with you losing.
P.S. You’ll be told you’re wrong because you are. I bet $1 we could find substantially more MSM articles and Op/Eds about this Wright/Obama controversy than we could about McCain/Hagee, not to mention McCain/Parsley. (But then I forget the Uncle standard: both got covered, so it’s fair, irrespective of how much coverage, and in what venues, each received…)
Big U:
Obama has been presented as being above all the usual rhetoric.
And so far, he has been, which is why there is instead the persistent attempt to engage in guilty-by-association. They can’t pin anything of the sort on Obama himself, so they have to attack him through an associate.
Morris:
Dan M. your ignorance about Islam is profound.
Kettle, meet pot. At least Dan M. admits his ignorance. Yet, I’ll bet a $2 bill that you haven’t read more than ten pages of the Qu’ran, and that the majority of your “knowledge” of Islam comes from what Christians say about it.
Comment 3/21/2008
‘I bet $1 we could find substantially more MSM articles and Op/Eds about this Wright/Obama controversy than we could about McCain/Hagee, not to mention McCain/Parsley.’
I would not take that bet because back when McCain’s story broke, he was like a fourth tier candidate.
Comment 3/21/2008
“Yet, I’ll bet a $2 bill that you haven’t read more than ten pages of the Qu’ran,”
You lose.
Comment 3/21/2008
Uncle:
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? The McCain/Hagee story broke at the end of February. Mitt Romney suspended his campaign on February 7, essentially handing McCain the nomination. The only other GOP candidates even running in late February were Paul and Huckabee, neither of whom was considered viable at the time.
So no, McCain wasn’t “like a fourth tier candidate”; he wasn’t even just the “front runner.” He was the presumptive Republican nominee.
But you’re right not to take the bet, however, because you’d lose.
Morris:
Color me surprised. (In fact, it would have surprised me to learn that you’ve actually read more than about a quarter of the Bible, but that’s neither here nor there.)
I’m willing to take your word for it. How do you want your $2?
Comment 3/21/2008
Big U:
I like your explanation about the disproportionate coverage. I still think it is just spin, but it is much better and cleverly crafted than the stock, no bells or whistles spin we usually get. Even if I think something is BS, I respect the process of crafting above average quality BS.
Dan M:
Preach on! I think the world would be a better place if Christianity, and all formal religion didn’t exist - not necessarily in the short run, but long term.
Morris:
With the above said, I respect, and would even fight for your right to practice that religion because that’s your personal choice. One, I’d like it toned down in public space. Two, you can practice your religion all you want, but you can’t discriminate against people or perpetrate violence against people on the basis of it with impunity. So, I don’t hate Christians as a group, just because I resent their beliefs and institutions. I know that Christians, as individual people are complex beings, of which their religion is only one of many defining factors. I have plenty of friends who are Christians, but I overlook that - just like I do to my Yankee fan friends
Comment 3/21/2008
digglahhh:
Somehow I got the (obviously mistaken) impression that you were a Yankees fan.
Comment 3/21/2008
You mean because of my history of ardently supporting dynastic rule?
Mets
Giants
Knicks
Rangers
I actually don’t hate the Yanks, I just play the role sometimes. And, I really consider myself just a sports fan.
Baseball = genus, Mets = species
Comment 3/21/2008
I’ll be at the Mets game on 6/23 this year. My first (and almost certainly last) at Shea.
Comment 3/21/2008
Re the parallels between McCain/Hagee and Obama/Wright. It is true both candidates had the support of the pastors, and to some degree they were associated with their campaigns. (It seems like a presidential campaign must have about 10,000 people associated with it, exclusive of the folks who do the hands-on work.)
However, and it pains me to say this but it is true, in addition to that, Wright was Obama’s pastor for 20 years, he married him, and he baptised his two kids. Clearly there is a personal connection there. That connection is not present in the case of McCain/Hagee.
I think this, more than anything, explains why there is more coverage of the Obama situation. Well, that and the fact that he is still in a race whereas McCain is the presumptive nominee.
Comment 3/21/2008
“Color me surprised. (In fact, it would have surprised me to learn that you’ve actually read more than about a quarter of the Bible, but that’s neither here nor there.)”
Be surprised. Your prejudice causes you to make many wrong assumptions.
“I’m willing to take your word for it. How do you want your $2?”
Give it to a local Christian charity.
Comment 3/21/2008
It’s quite possible I’ll be there too. My brother’s birthday is the following day, and we often go to a game around his b-day.
I actually go to a lot of games, last season was, for some reason, an off-year for me, attendence-wise. I’m a former MLB employee, and my girlfriend is a current MLB employee. She gets a pass that grants her + a guest entry to any MLB, non-playoff game. It’s pretty cool, I must say!
Comment 3/21/2008
“you can practice your religion all you want, but you can’t discriminate against people or perpetrate violence against people on the basis of it with impunity.”
It’s mighty nice of you to let me practice my religion However, I’m not sure when you saw me discriminate against someone unlawfully or act violently toward someone. Of course, you do have an active imagination.
Comment 3/21/2008
Morris, I have always been amazed at how you will pretend to be stupid so you can post a disagreeable comment.
Comment 3/21/2008
Ted:
The personal connection factor in to the coverage, no doubt, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of any effort on the part of the MSM to determine whether or not the 3 minutes of sound bites we have are an accurate cross-section of Reverend Wright’s sermons. Further, while the personal connection makes the Obama story “sexier” from a media perspective, let’s not forget that McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement (and also Parsley’s), even though their anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, and anti-gay rhetoric was already a matter of public record when he did so.
So on the one hand, you have an association that runs back 20 years, and the associate on two occasions over the last seven years said some inflammatory-if-not-necessarily-inaccurate things. And on the other hand, you have someone who’s best known for saying inflammatory things — arguably much worse things (after all, I’m not aware of Rev. Wright calling another major Christian religion “a cult” or accusing it of being a “religion of hate”) — and a major candidate seeks out his endorsement. You might not think that the latter is necessarily a bigger story, but it certainly shouldn’t be a substantially smaller one. But again, IOKIYAR, I guess.
Comment 3/21/2008
“Morris, I have always been amazed at how you will pretend to be stupid so you can post a disagreeable comment.”
I don’t think you are pretending.
Comment 3/21/2008
“anti-Semitic”
What comments? I don’t know much about either man, but the little I know about Hagee is that he is a big time supporter of Israel and that his Lord is a Jew.
Comment 3/21/2008
TGirsch, I am only stating why I think the situations are different. I in no way am defnding the way they are being covered by the MSM.
The Richardson endorsement is pretty huge, especially in light of his past connections with the Clintons.
Comment 3/21/2008
Ted:
Understood. Although you seem to be agreeing that Obama’s relationship with Wright was more troubling and/or more deserving of coverage, which is why I disagreed. If that was not your implication, I apologize for misunderstanding.
And I disagree about the Richardson endorsement. From what I can tell, endorsements really don’t make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things, unless they’re the bad kind.
Morris:
Contrary to what you might think, support for the state of Israel and antisemitism are not mutually exclusive. Many conservative Christian leaders support Israel not out of any love of the Jews, but because they believe a state of Israel is a necessary precondition for the End Times and the rapture. Hagee would appear to be among these:
In other words, by preventing conflict between Israel and Iran, we’re potentially violating God’s will and delaying the apocalypse. Not exactly the kind of support I’m looking for, if I’m an Israeli Jew…
Also:
So, apparently, Wright saying America’s “chickens are coming home to roost” is unacceptable, but Hagee saying the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves is neither antisemitic nor cause for a presidential candidate not to seek someone’s endorsement.
Comment 3/21/2008
Hey, I’m a benevolent mofo like that. I mean, WWJD, right?…
Never one to be humble though, Fred, huh… I guess the concept of the collective you is a little to abstract and, thus, I must have been speaking literally about me personally allowing you to practice religion and you, personally killing people and shit.
And you have the nerve to wonder why I NEED alcohol…
Comment 3/21/2008
Re Richardson, I don’t know how one can quantify the impact of endorsements, so I suppose it is just opinion. But I think having a former candidate back a current candidate is significant. Especially at the super delegate level, which is where the nomination will be won and lost.
Re Wright, I do believe that due to the differences, the Obama situation deserves more coverage. It also deserves better coverage. It is not bothersome to me, but I accept the reality that it will be bothersome to others - lots of them. Put it this way - a recent poll showed a 13 point shift to Clinton post Wright. Another one showed a majority of voters will be less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright. An event that causes that much shift deserves significant coverage. Obviously there is some chicken and egg syndrome in play here - more coverage results in a bigger shift, but even if you attribute 50% of the shift to “excessive” coverage, there is still a lot of chicken to go with the egg.
Comment 3/21/2008
That actually makes sense, on both levels. Since anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-gay, and anti-Muslim rhetoric aren’t particularly troubling to most likely Republican voters, then maybe the Hagee thing really is a non-story…
Seriously, I’m not sure I buy your “swing” logic. After all, the SBVT stuff prompted a pretty big swing away from Kerry, and I doubt you’d say that the coverage of that was anything other than overblown. But then again, maybe that’s what you meant by quality vs. quantity of coverage.
Comment 3/21/2008
Obama has once again displayed his prejudice. In an interview with a radio host he said that his white grandmother was a typical white person. What is a typical white person? Remember this is the same grandmother who was afraid when black men walked by her. Were they typical black men?
Comment 3/21/2008
Have you ever met a right wing talking point that you did not repeat? Even Chris Wallace called bullshit on that, on the air, on Fox News!
Comment 3/21/2008
Which part is not true? Did someone make up the quote from Obama? This blog is properly named. Yep, double standards.
BTW, I didn’t hear this from fox news. I don’t even get fox news. I’m too poor to have more than basic cable. I get ABC, CBS, NBC. You know,those right wing networks.
Comment 3/21/2008
Yes, Morris, Obama must be prejudiced because he said “typical white person”. I must be prejudiced as well, because I believe the typical white person feels some apprehension when a black man approaches them at night. At least under certain circumstances. I know that I do. I must be prejudiced because I just used the phrase “typical white person”.
But am I prejudiced against white people or black people? Maybe both. Is Obama prejudiced against white people (such as his mother) or black people (such as his father). Maybe both.
Or maybe you are full of shit, as typical.
Comment 3/21/2008
Morris, back in comment #28, said “I don’t know much.” I’m glad that Morris is willing to admit that he doesn’t know much. I think it’s important that we all point out, at every opportunity, that Morris said he doesn’t know much.
What part of that wouldn’t be true? Did he not say that?
Comment 3/21/2008
Jeez. Leave for a day and look what happens. Two final comments on this:
SayUncle -
in his examples 1 is in no way similar. And that 2 was covered quite extensively
Since some folks here are running around, picking at nits and sniffing at corners, trying to find something offensive that can be pinned on Barack Obama, I wonder if I should get in that spirit and find offense in the fact that you couldn’t be bothered to use my name. But leave that aside.
I’m not sure to what my first example was “in no way similar.” The issue was how the media would treat something possibly offensive said by McCain’s minister. The fact that the media can’t seem to get interested in something stupid said by McCain himself seems quite relevant to that question.
And don’t be silly, the statements by Hagee and Parsley were in no way “covered quite extensively,” especially not in comparison to the on-going drumbeat about Obama. In fact, Hagee and Parsley pretty much disappeared from campaign coverage within two or three days.
Ted -
Re Wright, I do believe … the Obama situation deserves more coverage.
I disagree with you based on pretty much the same factors you mentioned. On the one hand, we have a candidate who has had a long personal - not political or professional, but personal - relationship with a man who has said some controversial things, things where the controversy is less in what he actually said (i.e., the meaning) than in how he said it (i.e., the style, the language). On the other, we have a candidate who has actively sought out political relationships with people he does not know who have also said controversial things but where the controversy lies in the actual content, the actual meaning.
Of those two, I find the second more revealing of the candidate’s standards, of their politics, of the policies they would pursue. And more deserving of attention.
Consider this: I had a brother-in-law who was a racist. Not as much of a racist as a good number of other folks, but afflicted with that casual racism still frequently found around dinner tables, and enough that it sometimes caused conflict. Despite that, he was family and would never have been turned away if he needed help. Had I had actively sought out a relationship with such a person, I think that would have said a good deal more about me than the actual situation.
As for deserving coverage because of the drop in support, it’s much less a chicken and egg thing than it is a self-fulfilling prophecy thing: Just suppose that in the wake of the first round of Wright videos, when Obama more or less said “I don’t agree with those statements and I should be judged by what I say, not by what someone else says,” the media - as pretty much happened in the case of McCain - said “oh, well, we guess that’s okay then.” How big a drop in support do you suppose there would have been then?
I’ve maintained a long time that while it’s true that the media can’t control what people think, they do have a great deal of influence over what people think about. They are to a significant extent the arbiters of what merits public attention. And by both the persistent hammering on “the Rev. Wright controversy” and the way the coverage is framed, they are declaring “this is something you should be worried about, this raises questions about Obama, you should be worried about him.” It’s hardly surprising that some folks have been affected by that - and that reaction is then used to justify even more coverage.
While McCain skates. And hey, why shouldn’t he? He had the press to a barbecue, didn’t he?
Comment 3/22/2008
I believe Obama has had a political relationship with Wright for roughly the same amount of time McCain has had a political relationship with his guys.
Obama has stated that Wright has had a major influence on his thinking. Make sure that is understood. Wright has, by Obama’s admission, had a major influence on his thinking. Over a twenty year period. McCain has never claimed that. It is therefore reasonable that there will be significantly more coverage of the Obama situation than the McCain situation. Which is not to say the coverage has, in general been reasonable. It has been typically poor.
Pretty much everyone knows that a candidate accepts support anywhere he can get it. A major reason McCain lost last go round was because he did not cozy up to the religious right. In fact he was rather outspoken against certain elements. Which received a lot of coverage, and I think a lot of people to this day (I am one of them) put more stock in his previous repudiation of the RR precisely because it hurt him politically (as he knew it would). Many people (including me) think that his current associations are merely for political expediency. Which certainly lowers my opinion of him, but does not cause me to believe he has changed his core beliefs.
Also, as mentioned earlier, there is video in the case of Wright. Take away the video, and the story shrinks by 80%. And, again, at this time McCain is not running against anyone. Things that he does and say can not be directly translated into campaign grist. That and the cold hard fact that being anti-gay or anti-Catholic or anti-Jew is going to upset considerably fewer people in this country than being anti-white or anti-USA. That is the reality of our culture, and I don’t think the media is up to the task of trying to change it.
I suppose one can argue that the two situations deserve equal coverage, and that the liberal media, the conservative media, the blogosphere, the campaigns themselves, and the dinner table discussions are all disproportionate in their attention. But I find that when my argument is contradicted by every data point against which it can be evaluated, it’s usually time to rethink my position.
Comment 3/22/2008
So, Morris, about those $2 from TG, how is he supposed to tell what’s a real Christian charity?
Comment 3/22/2008
Grow up, liitle boy.
Comment 3/22/2008
“What part of that wouldn’t be true? Did he not say that?”
You are a dishonest person with no integrity.
Comment 3/22/2008
Ted:
Sorry, but I have to agree with LarryE on this one.
Wright has, by Obama’s admission, had a major influence on his thinking. Over a twenty year period.
Which makes it fair game to harp on out of context cherry-picked statements from over that period, which bear absolutely zero resemblance to absolutely anything in Obama’s record of service or stated positions?
McCain has never claimed that.
Not over a twenty year period, maybe, but he has called Parsley, Mr. “America was created for the purpose of destroying the False religion of Islam,” his “spiritual guide.”
Also, as mentioned earlier, there is video in the case of Wright. Take away the video, and the story shrinks by 80%.
There, perhaps, you may have a point. But the question is this: is there not video of Hagee or Parsley making controversial remarks? Or has the media simply not played the video ad nauseum. I’m betting it’s closer to the latter than to the former.
That and the cold hard fact that being anti-gay or anti-Catholic or anti-Jew is going to upset considerably fewer people in this country than being anti-white or anti-USA. That is the reality of our culture, and I don’t think the media is up to the task of trying to change it.
Again, I’m inclined to agree with you on this point. Of course, sometimes it seems to me like the media is not only not up to the task of changing it, but rather they have a vested interest in preserving and perpetuating it.
I suppose one can argue that the two situations deserve equal coverage
Unequal coverage is one thing, but the degree of unequal coverage is absolutely ridiculous given the facts of the two cases. Yes Obama has known Wright, and has even been close to him, for 20 years. Wright said something controversial nearly seven years ago. Obama states that he disagrees profoundly with that controversial statement, and there’s absolutely no reason that anyone can point to, other than the relationship itself, to believe otherwise. Why isn’t Obama’s denouncemnet, coupled with his record, enough?
Because the right wing is, by their own admission, actively pushing this story to keep it in the headlines, and the media is playing along like the lapdogs they are.
Morris:
Per your request, I’ve set $2 to the Food Share program at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL
Comment 3/22/2008
You are a dishonest person with no integrity.
Wait, why does it make me a “dishonest person” to take a portion of your statement out of context and repeat it to make you look bad, but it’s perfectly okay, in your mind, for someone to do it to Obama’s statement?
Comment 3/22/2008
It wasn’t a fragment of a sentence.
Comment 3/22/2008
“Per your request, I’ve sent $2 to the Food Share program at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL”
I bet you did. It’s your money. Do with it what you will. If you want to support the ministry of a racist church, that’s your choice. Hopefully, a worthy person will receive help.
Comment 3/22/2008
“to take a portion of your statement out of context and repeat it to make you look bad, but it’s perfectly okay, in your mind, for someone to do it to Obama’s statement?”
After reading your comment I went back and listened to Obama’s comment in its entirety. It actually sounds worse in its entirity than it does when the “typical white person” is quoted. He actually said that the response to blacks is “bred in” whites.
Comment 3/22/2008
Nice job Morris, your response to being accused to taking something out of context is…to take something out of context. If you listened to the next two words Obama uttered after the two you quoted above, you would, if you have any intellectual integrity at all, have to admit you are extracting words and presenting them to create a false impression of the speaker’s true intent.
Your comment #48 intends to mislead the reader into thinking Obama said a response to blacks is though breeding - ie endemic to whites at birth. However, Obama’s next two words, which you have chosen to omit, were “our experiences”. He is not saying the responses are endemic in nature, but rather they are experiential in nature. Which is true.
Your childish parsing of Obama’s extemporaneous words are a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have an adult conversation about race. Because knee-jerk idiots such as yourself react to individual words or pairs of words and ignore what the speaker is trying to say. I have petitioned for your removal from this forum in the past, but there are times when you do serve a useful purpose; you remind everyone that narrow-minded creeps like you do exist, waiting to distort the truth and twist it to reinforce your agenda. Have a nice Easter, christian. Jesus would be proud of you.
Comment 3/23/2008
Okay, Obama didn’t mean whites are bred to be bigots. He seems to say a lot of things he doesn’t mean after he is called on them and the racist attitude that has been “bred in” the his black experience is exposed.
Happy Easter
Comment 3/23/2008
“Have a nice Easter, christian. Jesus would be proud of you.”
Thank you. I had a very nice Easter. Went to church and then had my family over for dinner. Very nice. I strive to be what Christ would have me be and certainly an atheist is not my judge, and I could not care less what you think of me.
BTW, instead of trying to censor me because my opinions don’t match your perverted views, just quit responding to me every time I post. That way I won’t respond to your inanities and narrow-minded prejudice. Surely you have enough manhood and self-control not to respond to me. Of course, maybe I am overestimating you.
Comment 3/23/2008
Funny, Morris, I’ve read all four of the Gospels, and I’ve never heard Jesus be as condescending as you just were. I guess you need to strive harder to be what Christ would have you be, unless you think Christ would have you be an immature asshole.
Comment 3/23/2008
Morris, you keep insisting you don’t care what other people here think of you, you keep insisting we are all strange, and liars, and racists. You keep asking commenters here to stop responding to you. And you keep reading and commenting here. That’s just a statement of the facts. I don’t need to add anything else; the reality of the situation speaks for itself.
Comment 3/23/2008
“And you keep reading and commenting here.”
You amuse me. You have no idea how funny you are to normal people.
Comment 3/23/2008
No, not to normal people, but we know how funny we are to you…
Comment 3/23/2008
“Funny, Morris, I’ve read all four of the Gospels, and I’ve never heard Jesus be as condescending as you just were.”
I’m not sure which four Gospels you read, but you must have missed the parts that tell us of some of the rough language Jesus used in describing Pharisees. He called them whited sepulchres, which certainly was not a description of approval and affection. He cast the money changers out of the Temple. He confronted others who were sinners. Yes, He is one who loves, but He is also a God of judgment. The mild mannered Christ also opposes sin.
Thank goodness I won’t be judged by your standards. Have a nice life now. That’s all you get. Enjoy. I know I enjoy my life in Christ. I feel sorry for you.
Comment 3/23/2008
I guess the meaning of the word “condescending” is beyond some folks…
Comment 3/23/2008
The Wright moment is only an msm strategy to give the impression that they are fair. It will blow over soon, and we’ll again be listening to the Gobama Choir. The msm knew they might not get another republican puppet in office. So they hedged their bets and put together an uneducated coalition of red State folk and young people to elect a naive poser like Obama. The red States have always ignored the rule against bearing false witness, and they cut themselves off from the enlightenment long ago. Young folk were taught rhetoric instead of logic, and they don’t know much about the world yet. Neither group can reason their way out of a paper bag; and they’re easily manupulate by empty rhetoric.
The msm wins again. Resistance is futile.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com
Comment 3/24/2008
“Ted writes:
I guess the meaning of the word “condescending” is beyond some folks…”
It certainly is not beyond you. You are an expert on the subject.
Comment 3/24/2008