Anyway, judging people for their genetic makeup makes you an intellectual midget.
Not at all. An intellectual midget is someone who pretends there are no differences when they obviously exist.
Now see, if I have no inherent problem justifying killing when it is necessary. All I say is that those who murder unborn children should do the same.
1. Catholic crusades Entirely justifiable reconquest of christian land conquered by islamic nations. The Byzantine Empire was christian, you know.
2. Death penalty (Bush sent a bunch of retards to death. How honorable is that? Support away.) The retards murdered people. They understood what they did. They should die and I am glad they did.
3. Sponsoring Israel's terrorist action on the Palestinians (which is not to say the Palestinians are blameless) Tough break for the PLO, but they are our allies.
4. The Iraq war 7. Oh yeah, the embargos on Iraq in the 90s (Medication for children? Fuck that! Their leader won't do business with us!) Would have been avoided had the USA not intervened against Saddam in 1991. But if the USA does not intervene against Saddam in 1991, then, there is no UN Charter any more. Honestly, with the way the UN has turned out to be so anti-American, it is obvious that we should have let Saddam have Kuwait and march into Saudi Arabia. Then from there, every nation on the planet, knowing that there was no penalty for invasions, could have been free to do what it will. But we could have had a few resolutions ala the League of Nations to discuss it!
As it was, we were looking at indefinite sanctions, which are a permanent sort of war, versus what was hopefully a quick war. But then we leave Saddam in power...and he re-arms and goes and invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -again-. Saddam, you know, is Iraqi for "stubborn."
5. The nuking of Japan Tough break for Hiroshima, but, hey they deserved it. Should not have attacked China, should not have attacked USA and could have avoided the atomic treatment had they accepted fully the terms of the Potsdam declaration, or even accepted the unconditional surrender when it was first offered. As it was, they still got to keep their Emperor, even though now we know he was in fact a war criminal as much as Adolph was on the other side of the Eurasia.
6. The embargos on Cuba I agree with this. Sanctions are a form of war. If you are going to have a war, have one, and be done with it quickly.
Admission of pressuring girlfriend into an abortion... Blah blah blah, the mother was horrible, the finances were all wrong. Could you have thought about that before you slept with her? See, at the end of the day, whether you cheered when the bombs fall on Baghdad, or pressured your girlfriend to have an abortion, the intent is the same. At some point, the consequences of someone living are too much and its easier to just kill them.
There is only ONE morally superior position. And that is, if you want to be morally superior, you have to be anti-sanctions, anti-war, and anti-abortion. That's it. If you are compromising on one of the three, then you are just as much of a slug as the rest of us.
I'm always fascinated when i read blatant racism under the guise of pragmatism
Well, "Chocolate City Mayor" didn't do anyone any favors, for sure. But, at the same time, Bush should have stepped up to the plate and saved the people.
No, New Orleans was a case of corrupt black city officials not properly utilizing the monies granted to them via the federal government.
I'm a long time Bush supporter and I have to concede that I was very disappointed with the way that he handled Katrina. Let me put it this way. If I was President, I'd have had an army in there on day one, stopping at every Home Depot on the way to pick up stuff to build with and sending the bills to Congress. I'd have had generators in there and the water out. That didn't take place. It doesn't mean that he's racist, as the original poster states, and nor does it absolve the local residents from their own admittedly corrupt local government, but, by the same token, when a man is drowning, you don't sit there and yell at him for not following proper safety regulations on the boat. You pull him out.
I wanted to see Bush with the megaphone in downtown New Orleans, the same way as he was on top of the WTC rubble. I thought that moment in September in NYC so long ago was Bush about as good as a President could get, and by contrast, the Bush we got for Katrina flew over the region in Air Force one, delegated the disaster to a low level functionary that wound up failing at the job, and then, to top it all off, gave us some vague excuses about seperation of federal powers and the posse commitatas act. The guy was already breaking the law doing wiretaps without a court order, so, if you are going to argue the President can bend the rules to protect the American people, then he should have bent them in New Orleans.
I mean, if Bush could muster the national purpose to turn an attack by a rogue group into an invasion of not one, but TWO countries, certainly going against the spirit of our own signing of the UN Treaty, then, he could have bent a few rules, and been that figurehead again, and mounted a national effort to rebuild New Orleans. The man had an opportunity to become a living legend, and he blew it, and America is lesser for it.
That's more of a case of white people not helping black people out, than it is a case of white people forcibly evicting black people. As it is, the USA has put more money into that city as of late than most of the rest of the world's cities have ever received in the aftermath of a natural disaster. And, to top it all off, New Orleans should now be getting a share of the gulf oil money.
I thought it was the domain of the religious fanatics to judge people for stuff like homosexuality, oral sex, sex before marriage, and whatnot. It used to be that the republicans were the good guys in the censorship wars, but no longer.
the religious fanatics on the other side of the aisle judge you for everything but that stuff. And I think its reasonable to judge someone based on that kind of behavior. It's all a matter of choice and there are lifestyle implications to that.
I thought it was the domain of the religious fanatics to judge people based upon their belief or non-belief in a god or no god. And control whether or not people can get an abortion. It's a gray area, that's why there's so much disagreement. There shouldn't be a law against it.
I think you can judge people on whether or not they believe in god, as you should not be forced to associate with people that do not share your culture. There's no grey area in abortion. It's killing, by any sane stretch of the imagination. The thing is, those who are in favor of abortion generally don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that yes, there are times that they favor killing to. It's kinda hard to walk around saying that you are morally superior when you just pressured your girlfriend into having an abortion so you could keep sleeping with other women rather than make a commitment and raise a family.
You know, I shudder to think of Mike Huckabee as president, but I think he's actually a decent guy. And he said Jesus was too smart to get into politics. And I think that goes a long way to dispelling the myth you're propagating about there being morality in politics. Especially Republican/Democrat politics.
I don't think Huckabee is a decent guy, and I am Republican, of the Bush supporting sort. Huck's personable and quick on his feet, but I do not think his brand of politics belongs in government.
If there has ever been a more circular, self-agrandizing statement than this I've certainly never seen it.
Trust me. You are the one that is the same as a monkey. I'm not. So, why don't you go have a banana or throw poop at something, while I do the heavy lifting of thinking for you. Are you litter trained?
This is a joke, right? I write that, "all thinking meat is the same" and you think I believe in magic spirits? Wow.
There's no basis for that belief at all, that's what I'm saying. All meat is not the same. All animals are not the same. Humans have skyscrapers and spaceships and guns, and animals, well, throw poop at each other.
The fact that you are unable to value anything without a magic sky-daddy telling you what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, what is important and unimportant is entirely your problem. I assure you that the hundreds of millions of atheists around the world are perfectly capable of valuing biodiversity and the beauty in the natural world without having to be ordered to do so under penalty of eternal torture by a comicbook superhero who lives in the clouds.
Let me clue you in. Just because you do not believe in god does not excuse you from having a religious framework. At a high level, this is easy enough to prove: if there is no god, and yet, religion exists, then religion must be solely a human invention and a social framework with exclusionary membership requirements. Basically, if people can act in a religious capacity and there is no god, then, it follows that people do act in a religious capacity even when they do not believe in God. By itself, this is begging the premise, but the factuality of that statement has been born out in godless societies, such as communism and atheistic liberalism.
For that reason, I don't accept that atheists can be fair minded or decent people because I think you are all self delusional. You've absolved yourselves of a supposed crime, belief in God, that actually has no bearing on the behaviors that you ascribe to organizing around such beliefs. Lacking any sense of awareness of what you really are, but having the same organizational bent as a religion, you are more likely than any other organization to engage in the behavior that you accuse religions of.
So yes, you do seek to destroy humanity in accordance with your religion. First, you deny humanity any sort of priviledge space despite you being a member of that group, and seek to stop those that would. Then, you argue that infanticide is justifiable because a fetus is not alive, while at the same time, you argue that animals should triumph over humans. We're all meat, you would argue, and so it is perfectly natural that a human should be eaten by a wolf or a bear as much as a human would eat a cow. It's justice to you.
At the end of the day, you ask that I and others do not discriminate against you for your beliefs? That's crazy. How could we not despise you. I want to associate with people, and be led by people, that want humans to eat cows and not be eaten by bears. It's better for -our team-, the human team. If you want to give up an arm or a leg for the bears to eat, go right ahead, but, since you aren't willing to play on the human team, then there's no reason to compel the rest of us to trust you, as you already said we cannot.
Well, yes, they are allowed to decide that... for themselves. They have no call to force their decision on anybody - much as I am not forcing mine on them. Amazing how those false dilemmas can be navigated around when you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about something, isn't it?
Obviously, you must be a second short then. It's not a false dilemna. You just completely missed the point. If you judge a fetus to be non-human, then, you forced your decision on -it-. Similarly, if I judge an Iranian to be non-human, or really, any non-Republican, then, I force a decision on -it-. It's the initial decision that matters.
Lets see... Tookie killed 3 people before he was caught. In prison, he killed no one.
Look, Tookie had to die. Putting a man in prison for killing people is not a sufficient penalty for the crime. If Tookie had killed my son, should I not be allowed to kill Tookie, if the government won't do it? Why are you so concerned about the plight of the murderer and not the victims of the crime? Seriously, when I see a prison full of convicted murderers, all I can think of are all the families of all the victims and all the funerals, all the wakes, all the loss. When I run that through my head, I ask myself, why are the murderers even alive. It simply isn't fair that victims of a murder have to go through a funeral(s), while the perpretrators get to keep their family member. It isn't fair.
This is tiring, and the rest of your sermon looks like blatant demagoguery, so I think I'll leave it at that for now. Next time, try to bring an argument that makes sense perhaps?
Make sense? Let's see. You are the one that argues that someone who kills three people deserves a greater shot at life than a child that hasn't even been born yet. If that's what you call logic, then I'll gladly be ill-logical.
My whole point, which you obviously missed, is that there is nothing inherently special about being human
I am human. That's what makes my humanity special. You're argument is to assume that there is a natural notion of equality, and there isn't. Humans are demonstrably better than other animals. We are smarter, and therefor, we have the ability to do what we will.
Because it is based on logic and reason, and not on the hopelessly outdated superstitions of a random Middle Eastern tribe from the Bronze Age who thought that the Earth was flat and was created 2,000 years after the Babylonians invented beer.
And you are basing yours on an animistic earth worship that predates even that. You believe that every living thing has some sort of a spirit within it. And honestly, the fact of the matter is, if there is no god, the earth is just a rock, and it doesn't matter one whit if human beings exterminate all of the bears, lions and tigers. You have this fantastic assumption that you can make a deal with a biosystem, as if, a giant rock whirling around a ball of fusing hydrogen gas is capable of signing and living up to a contract. There is no such quid pro quo. There is only survival of the best, and the people with the most guns win.
Your transparently obvious beliefs in the soul and Heaven and Hell are the only possible explanation for being stupid enough to be pro-life. By calling abortion murder, you reveal your morality to be derived from ancient magic books instead of logic and rational thinking. This disqualifies you from rational discourse.
No. I see pictures of children in the womb. I see them react to stimuli. I know that, many of them survive if born prematurely, and therefor, they are alive. The science is there, the images are there. Quite logically, by any stretch of the imagination, those unborn children are human.
If you want to rationalize killing them, arguing about population, crime, the planet, ensuring racial balances, whatever, then go ahead. But, you are lying if you really think a baby isn't human.
ny dog or cat, not to mention chimpanzee or dolphin, has a vastly greater capacity for both suffering and self-awareness than any newborn human infant, let alone a human fetus or embryo.
My dog could understand me better than someone who speaks Farsi. That's not a good test, now is it? What is your test for determining what is human, and what is not, and why is that test any better than mine. Go ahead and say that you require birth to be human, but then, answer me this, why could I not say that only christians are humans? don't get all emotional about it. Just answer the question logically. What gives your proclamation of humanity any better than mine, and can there really be any best definition? The answer to that, I will tell you, is no, and that's the underlying logical problem with abortion. If you can disenfranchise or enfranchise humanity, then so can I, and our definitions do not have to agree!
My salty advice to you: RTFA. Stop being a dualist. Talk about issues and not talking points with loaded questions. Less terrible logic on tangents that excuse your vices and more analysis with a focus on the topic at hand. Peace.
Well, you have to look at my remarks in the context in which they were applied. I pointed out that basically everyone is a racist and so to get bent out of shape over Obama's preacher was silly. In fact, I even went and suggested that I thought that if even if Obama didn't like white people (and I think its pretty reasonable to think at least his wife doesn't), that, I don't think that would make him a less effective president. I think that is a pretty progressive position to take and that was the issue.
Now, some guy jumped all over me and pointed out that conservatives are "more" evil and liberals are all saints, so I obliged him with a debate. He didn't want a discussion of the issues. He wanted a flame war, and so I gave him one, largely because, I've found that sometimes people just want to fight and so long as you can keep your wits about you, that can be ok too.
The difference between your "liberals" and your "conservatives" is that your conservatives (and presumably, you) care more about what car the government allows them to drive than who they are allowed to marry.
Well, from my perspective, I think the country right now has bigger problems to worry about than what gay people do. But, if I do wade in... I'm basically pro-gay marriage.
Government is about protecting the rights of people to private property, and so it follows that government should respect property. Marriage is, at a legal level, a property / asset sharing arrangement traditionally made to support child rearing, but, I think we could decouple a hetero nuclear family marriage from some other sorts of marriages and so allow for things like wills, deeds, transfers, alimony, etc, for people that are gay. So ultimately, if a couple wants to enter into a contract of marriage, its really their right to engage in that contract. You can't say that some kind of people are allowed to have a particular contract, while others are not, otherwise, you dispossess people of their right to property by denying them the right to provision it as they see fit.
Now of course, the ultimate question is, should the government be involved in marriage at all? I would have to think that the answer to that is no, however, it is in the government's interest to encourage hetero marriage and child rearing because population growth allows us to pay for all of our entitlement schemes and its ultimately good for the economy, and raising a child in a marriage is the preferred way to do it (although not the only way, for sure). So that's different from what gay marriage brings to the table, but at the same time, being as I am anti-abortion, I'd rather have a gay couple adopt a kid then see one being aborted, so, even there, the idea of a gay marriage as being different, in a legal sense, mind you, isn't so significant as one might believe. Of course, they are hugely different relationships, but, one has to wonder if those are differences of the sort the government has any business regulating and I think the answer to that is 'no'.
But then you descend into painting all liberals with the same wide brush...and then go on and say divisive things yourself about people who disagree with you.
Well, I'm only really doing it because the particular poster I am arguing is a militant liberal and he's come out with the usual lib speech on his side, so therefor, I felt that I should oblige him in some way with the usual conservative speech because, he's actually -not- interested in compromise and would rather take the sharp road and debate for the sport of it. Were I talking with someone more moderate, I wouldn't be painting things that way and would naturally tend to seek a more accommodating position.
What a fool you (and the 25% of people who agree with you) are. OK, Bush's approval might be a few points above 25%, like 29% now and 27% in February, bouncing around that range for nearly a year. But what's the difference? What kind of contrived nonsense that I'm "dividing the country" by refusing to make a distinction without a difference?
The kind of nonsense that someone who ignores that people kill people with guns (and their environment with trucks) will happily ignore in your faithy paradise. You will change your life, whether the government, the economy or nature makes you. BUt since I care about my life more than yours that you're wasting dragging the rest of us down, I'm happy to see you divided from the weapons you're fatuously insisting on playing with.
See, now you are changing the story. The fact of the matter is, you claimed that we were being divisive, and now, all of sudden, come the rationalizations for why you want to take away might rights. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I have a right to my truck. You are not taking that away. If you try, then there will be civil war. It's really that simple. You do not have a right to steal my possessions because of your pathological need to feel safe.
So while I'm happy to benefit from the catastrophe you Republicans have wrought on our country,... try and stop it
Why are all the subprime states Democratic states? Just checking....the fact of the matter is, the national economy is being dragged down by cities and states that Democrats have driven into the ground. Look at Michigan. Look at Cleveland. In fact, let's all have a look at Illinois. Democrats have looted those places for years, and now that all the businesses have left, to avoid getting further raped, you go and cry fowl. I mean, seriously. You claim to want to create jobs, and claim to value opportunity, but, at the same time, any time a corporation tries to set up shop in a Democratic state, they get taxed to the hilt, all the construction is blocked by environmental lawsuits, and then the crooks come in looking for a few favors to get the commissioner a new deck, and then, finally, when that's all done, the union marches in, demands a cut of the paycheck of every worker, and in the end, delivers nothing but a bunch of swimming pools for the heads of unions compliments of the so-called union pensions for workers.
It's a sad joke.
You know, Obama might well win the election. Your side always has been good at scaring people into believing that they are not capable of charting their own destiny, that, they need bullies and thugs like you to protect them (so that you can steal from these people you claim to protect). It's ironic, I suppose, in that, as much as you protest Republican fear mongering on the war on terror, you do it for nearly every other aspect of a person's live. You want to steal power so that you can stop guns, cars, private schools, private clubs, tvs, imports, trade, communications, radio talk shows, corporations, companies, along with every productive enterprise in the United States. We've seen the track record of your economic policies - the protectionist fear mongering that prolonged the Great Depression, the 1960s liberalism that ruined a generation, and now, in the shadow of all that wreckage, there's a handful of people getting ahead and getting out, and your answer is to destroy them too because you can't stand to see someone succeed.
So, the moral of the story is, you can talk about being patriotic and helping out america as much as you want, but, you aren't seeking to build anything. You are seeking to drag other people down so you and your buddies can cash in on the patronage jobs and make-work industries. Patriots add value to the country, and you don't.
don't claim "moral" superiority. I claim intellectual superiority, and whatever kind of superiority honesty gives me. You can claim only the lies and hypocrisy that Republicans earn with your projections of all your own worst fears about your own major malfunctions onto the people who care to tell the truth about you, who try to stop the damage you've unloaded that everyone can see is destroying everything you touch.
You don't have either. You are not intellectually better, and you are not honest with yourself.
But par for the course to hear some kind of contrived argument that it's "divisive" for judging people like you whose unregulated guns and trucks are actually killing people every day, and even threatening our entire civilization.
Guns don't kill people. People do. And you are divisive.
And no one but the 25% who still think Bush is god believes you. Zero tolerance for you faithy, crooked Republicans.
See, now that's divisive, because, about 35% of the people still approve of Bush. So, you can't claim zero tolerance for 35% of society, and not call yourself divisive. You just divided society! And then, there are a lot of people who believe in owning firearms as a fundamental human right. There are a lot of people that drive trucks responsibly. Now, you go and divide them too. See, you just keep dividing away, ever blissfully ignorant that your own totalitarian impulses are what is really dividing the country. Me, I just want low taxes and to keep my guns and my truck, but you, you attack me. And yet, I'm divisive for not wanting to change my life for your damaged view of the world. Why, didn't you already say you were a poor, abused victim of the evil corporations? Joining you would be the same as trying to team up with a kicked dog. You need, help, my poor victimized, disenfranchised friend, not political power. Best to leave the country to us, since you can't even pay your mortgage.
That is so true... I do not consider myself racist at all, however just a week ago I took the bus home and at some stop 3 black guys who I thought were about 20 got on the bus. I can't deny my first reaction was to get nervous.
It's very true. When you are fed a daily diet, on both the left and the right, of "angry black men, angry white men, angry latino men", all coming to get you, then, you react to it. Your eyes, as Obi Wan once said, "can deceive you, don't trust them." It takes courage to be a decent citizen.
Those preachers have the "guts and conviction" to recognize that a collection of cells in a womb that isn't conscious isn't a human being. They might still be mired in superstition, but at least they're not tricked into thinking that everything with a human shape is a human.
Well, then, if you can say that something with a human shape isn't human, then you have reserved yourself the right to judge what humanity is. So, why would it be so wrong for someone else to claim the same right?
Meanwhile, "pro-life" Republicans like you are desperate to send American soldiers to kill and die for nothing but lies and greed. You set yourself up as judges who take the lives of accused criminals, even when many are proven to be executed without even being guilty. You demand politicians who strip government of its powers to protect people's lives and health, leaving the weak to die early and suffer while they live, so some rich corporate owners can squeeze pennies from them.
No, we send soldiers to kill and die because they are fighting an enemy that has been the historic bane of the existence of western civilization for 1500 years. We set ourselves up as judges to execute murderers because, frankly, I think someone like Tookie deserved to be executed. I demand politicians strip government of the powers to use the people as an excuse to extort the common man for political patronage jobs, and I believe that humans are not weak, but are capable, and can earn the living. We believe that corporations are not evil and for the most part, those who are rich got there because they risked a lot and worked more, and we certainly do not believe that we should be required to subsidize those people that do neither, except on our own terms. We believe that people have the right to the fruits of their labors, you do not. We believe that people have the right to their own free expression, and you do not. We believe that people have the right to their religious beliefs, and you do not. We believe that people have the right to choose whom they should associate with, and you do not. We believe that most people can responsibly own private property, even firearms, and you do not. You can demagogue the rich as much as you like, but at the end of the day, your solution is make everyone a slave of the state so you can waltz around like Napolean the Pig in Animal Farm, being more equal than others, simply because you are a bigger bully than the rest. Well, if you are so brave, my friend, instead of complaining about how you do not have enough, and seek to steal it from others, why not go and earn more!
Just because Republicans have lowered American politics to divisive attacks irrelevant to facts, but playing on the worst impulses of Americans doesnt' mean we all have to accept it. Not when there's an alternative
You know why a lot of Republicans go listen to Pat Robertson - its because he preaches less than you!
It's your side that makes divisive attacks because you continually view the world as haves and have nots. Every time one of you liberals does not have something, instead of blaming your lot in life on your own dumb decisions, you have to make yourself the victim of some nefarious conspiracy.
Indeed, as much as liberals bemoan any conservative social initiatives, they see absolutely no need to attempt to reason or compromise their own point of view, and would have government ram it down the throats via the congress if elected, and through the courts if not. It is not conservatives that want to mandate what kind of houses people buy, what kind of cars people own, whether or not they have guns, or how they manage their money. Nope, that's all liberals, arguing, divisively, that they have the right to impose their social point of view on everyone in the country because their cause is 'morally right'.
It's absurd. There's no moral superiority in the left. It rationalizes racism against white people, and its environmental stances are a joke. You are innately divisive, because you judge people on everything.
Here's just one environmental example: Where's Sierra Club and MoveOn about estrogens from birth control leaching into environment? We have a controlled experiment in Canada where they took a lake, dumped 1 part in a -trillion- of birth control into it, and it lowered the birth rates of a number of species and caused deformities in others. It's solid, repeatable science, birth control at dosage levels equivalent to people peeing destroys aquatic life in the environment. Case closed. But... there's not a single word about this issue. But, god forbid, if someone buys an SUV, or owns a rifle, they are an evil destroyer of the environment. The moral of the story is, while you are complaining about someone destroying the atmosphere by owning a truck, bear in mind that you have most likely killed all of the frogs in the western world so you can get laid. And then, if killing all the frogs isn't good enough, you go and kill your offspring like so much tissue. You talk about sustainable living and having good practices, and here you are wrecking the planet and killing millions of unborn children so that you can pretend reproduction is a recreational pasttime.
There's no moral superiority on your side, and you don't need to come out like a bunch of thugs and pretend that there is, because I'm not and no one else is going to believe it. But if you go and say, well, here's what I want out of government, then, maybe there's room for compromise.
Except the facts are that Republicans actually embrace rightwing bigot preachers, while all we have here on "the Left" is a preacher who occasionally gets angry at the facts of America's killing innocent people and institutionalized racism. Hell, Pat Robertson ran for president as a Republican, and got millions of Republican votes. That's a pretty definite association. And every Republican president or candidate for it has sought and received Robertson's and Falwell's enthusiastic endorsement - not just sat in their church once in a while.
Spare the supposed outrage about killing innocent people when your we-hate-america preachers lack the guts and the conviction to say these are human beings.
Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
That's silly. Everyone knows someone that is a racist, and really, truth be told, we are all probably racist on some level. Faulting Obama for knowing someone who is a racist is like faulting someone for watching TV. It's just that common. Granted, I'd use it in a political debate on slashdot because I'm a troll that way, but the reality is, we're all a bit racists and we just have to confront that rather than pretend that listening to a bit of hip hop every now and then makes us culturally better. It's not how we think when we see people that matters as much - that whole approach is catholic guilt applied to race. But, its, do we judge people on the merits of their ideas, not the color of their skin.
Honestly, I don't care if the Obamas don't like white people in their core, and crack "cracker jokes" over family outings, so long as they run the country well when they are in there. I mean, if Obama is hanging out in the office saying "I gotta deal with these toothless white trash" so long as he balances the budget, gets the economy on track, and brings peace to the country, then, who cares?
Pretty silly to impute the remarks of another onto a candidate.
It is, but all's fair in love and politics. The Left tars the Right for years for associating with its round of the religious right. So, its entirely fair for the Right to hit the Left back on its associations with racist organizations. If Republicans are the party of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as the left likes to say, then certainly, it is fair to paint Democrats as the Party of Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, judging people for their genetic makeup makes you an intellectual midget.
Not at all. An intellectual midget is someone who pretends there are no differences when they obviously exist.
Now see, if I have no inherent problem justifying killing when it is necessary. All I say is that those who murder unborn children should do the same.
1. Catholic crusades
Entirely justifiable reconquest of christian land conquered by islamic nations. The Byzantine Empire was christian, you know.
2. Death penalty (Bush sent a bunch of retards to death. How honorable is that? Support away.)
The retards murdered people. They understood what they did. They should die and I am glad they did.
3. Sponsoring Israel's terrorist action on the Palestinians (which is not to say the Palestinians are blameless)
Tough break for the PLO, but they are our allies.
4. The Iraq war
7. Oh yeah, the embargos on Iraq in the 90s (Medication for children? Fuck that! Their leader won't do business with us!)
Would have been avoided had the USA not intervened against Saddam in 1991. But if the USA does not intervene against Saddam in 1991, then, there is no UN Charter any more. Honestly, with the way the UN has turned out to be so anti-American, it is obvious that we should have let Saddam have Kuwait and march into Saudi Arabia. Then from there, every nation on the planet, knowing that there was no penalty for invasions, could have been free to do what it will. But we could have had a few resolutions ala the League of Nations to discuss it!
As it was, we were looking at indefinite sanctions, which are a permanent sort of war, versus what was hopefully a quick war. But then we leave Saddam in power...and he re-arms and goes and invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -again-. Saddam, you know, is Iraqi for "stubborn."
5. The nuking of Japan
Tough break for Hiroshima, but, hey they deserved it. Should not have attacked China, should not have attacked USA and could have avoided the atomic treatment had they accepted fully the terms of the Potsdam declaration, or even accepted the unconditional surrender when it was first offered. As it was, they still got to keep their Emperor, even though now we know he was in fact a war criminal as much as Adolph was on the other side of the Eurasia.
6. The embargos on Cuba
I agree with this. Sanctions are a form of war. If you are going to have a war, have one, and be done with it quickly.
Admission of pressuring girlfriend into an abortion...
Blah blah blah, the mother was horrible, the finances were all wrong. Could you have thought about that before you slept with her? See, at the end of the day, whether you cheered when the bombs fall on Baghdad, or pressured your girlfriend to have an abortion, the intent is the same. At some point, the consequences of someone living are too much and its easier to just kill them.
There is only ONE morally superior position. And that is, if you want to be morally superior, you have to be anti-sanctions, anti-war, and anti-abortion. That's it. If you are compromising on one of the three, then you are just as much of a slug as the rest of us.
I'm always fascinated when i read blatant racism under the guise of pragmatism
Well, "Chocolate City Mayor" didn't do anyone any favors, for sure. But, at the same time, Bush should have stepped up to the plate and saved the people.
No, New Orleans was a case of corrupt black city officials not properly utilizing the monies granted to them via the federal government.
I'm a long time Bush supporter and I have to concede that I was very disappointed with the way that he handled Katrina. Let me put it this way. If I was President, I'd have had an army in there on day one, stopping at every Home Depot on the way to pick up stuff to build with and sending the bills to Congress. I'd have had generators in there and the water out. That didn't take place. It doesn't mean that he's racist, as the original poster states, and nor does it absolve the local residents from their own admittedly corrupt local government, but, by the same token, when a man is drowning, you don't sit there and yell at him for not following proper safety regulations on the boat. You pull him out.
I wanted to see Bush with the megaphone in downtown New Orleans, the same way as he was on top of the WTC rubble. I thought that moment in September in NYC so long ago was Bush about as good as a President could get, and by contrast, the Bush we got for Katrina flew over the region in Air Force one, delegated the disaster to a low level functionary that wound up failing at the job, and then, to top it all off, gave us some vague excuses about seperation of federal powers and the posse commitatas act. The guy was already breaking the law doing wiretaps without a court order, so, if you are going to argue the President can bend the rules to protect the American people, then he should have bent them in New Orleans.
I mean, if Bush could muster the national purpose to turn an attack by a rogue group into an invasion of not one, but TWO countries, certainly going against the spirit of our own signing of the UN Treaty, then, he could have bent a few rules, and been that figurehead again, and mounted a national effort to rebuild New Orleans. The man had an opportunity to become a living legend, and he blew it, and America is lesser for it.
Uhhh, New Orleans?
That's more of a case of white people not helping black people out, than it is a case of white people forcibly evicting black people. As it is, the USA has put more money into that city as of late than most of the rest of the world's cities have ever received in the aftermath of a natural disaster. And, to top it all off, New Orleans should now be getting a share of the gulf oil money.
I thought it was the domain of the religious fanatics to judge people for stuff like homosexuality, oral sex, sex before marriage, and whatnot. It used to be that the republicans were the good guys in the censorship wars, but no longer.
the religious fanatics on the other side of the aisle judge you for everything but that stuff. And I think its reasonable to judge someone based on that kind of behavior. It's all a matter of choice and there are lifestyle implications to that.
I thought it was the domain of the religious fanatics to judge people based upon their belief or non-belief in a god or no god. And control whether or not people can get an abortion. It's a gray area, that's why there's so much disagreement. There shouldn't be a law against it.
I think you can judge people on whether or not they believe in god, as you should not be forced to associate with people that do not share your culture. There's no grey area in abortion. It's killing, by any sane stretch of the imagination. The thing is, those who are in favor of abortion generally don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that yes, there are times that they favor killing to. It's kinda hard to walk around saying that you are morally superior when you just pressured your girlfriend into having an abortion so you could keep sleeping with other women rather than make a commitment and raise a family.
You know, I shudder to think of Mike Huckabee as president, but I think he's actually a decent guy. And he said Jesus was too smart to get into politics. And I think that goes a long way to dispelling the myth you're propagating about there being morality in politics. Especially Republican/Democrat politics.
I don't think Huckabee is a decent guy, and I am Republican, of the Bush supporting sort. Huck's personable and quick on his feet, but I do not think his brand of politics belongs in government.
In America we would justify it by saying they were poor blacks.
And, where would this take place today?
If there has ever been a more circular, self-agrandizing statement than this I've certainly never seen it.
Trust me. You are the one that is the same as a monkey. I'm not. So, why don't you go have a banana or throw poop at something, while I do the heavy lifting of thinking for you. Are you litter trained?
This is a joke, right? I write that, "all thinking meat is the same" and you think I believe in magic spirits? Wow.
There's no basis for that belief at all, that's what I'm saying. All meat is not the same. All animals are not the same. Humans have skyscrapers and spaceships and guns, and animals, well, throw poop at each other.
The fact that you are unable to value anything without a magic sky-daddy telling you what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, what is important and unimportant is entirely your problem. I assure you that the hundreds of millions of atheists around the world are perfectly capable of valuing biodiversity and the beauty in the natural world without having to be ordered to do so under penalty of eternal torture by a comicbook superhero who lives in the clouds.
Let me clue you in. Just because you do not believe in god does not excuse you from having a religious framework. At a high level, this is easy enough to prove: if there is no god, and yet, religion exists, then religion must be solely a human invention and a social framework with exclusionary membership requirements. Basically, if people can act in a religious capacity and there is no god, then, it follows that people do act in a religious capacity even when they do not believe in God. By itself, this is begging the premise, but the factuality of that statement has been born out in godless societies, such as communism and atheistic liberalism.
For that reason, I don't accept that atheists can be fair minded or decent people because I think you are all self delusional. You've absolved yourselves of a supposed crime, belief in God, that actually has no bearing on the behaviors that you ascribe to organizing around such beliefs. Lacking any sense of awareness of what you really are, but having the same organizational bent as a religion, you are more likely than any other organization to engage in the behavior that you accuse religions of.
So yes, you do seek to destroy humanity in accordance with your religion. First, you deny humanity any sort of priviledge space despite you being a member of that group, and seek to stop those that would. Then, you argue that infanticide is justifiable because a fetus is not alive, while at the same time, you argue that animals should triumph over humans. We're all meat, you would argue, and so it is perfectly natural that a human should be eaten by a wolf or a bear as much as a human would eat a cow. It's justice to you.
At the end of the day, you ask that I and others do not discriminate against you for your beliefs? That's crazy. How could we not despise you. I want to associate with people, and be led by people, that want humans to eat cows and not be eaten by bears. It's better for -our team-, the human team. If you want to give up an arm or a leg for the bears to eat, go right ahead, but, since you aren't willing to play on the human team, then there's no reason to compel the rest of us to trust you, as you already said we cannot.
Well, yes, they are allowed to decide that... for themselves. They have no call to force their decision on anybody - much as I am not forcing mine on them. Amazing how those false dilemmas can be navigated around when you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about something, isn't it?
Obviously, you must be a second short then. It's not a false dilemna. You just completely missed the point. If you judge a fetus to be non-human, then, you forced your decision on -it-. Similarly, if I judge an Iranian to be non-human, or really, any non-Republican, then, I force a decision on -it-. It's the initial decision that matters.
Lets see... Tookie killed 3 people before he was caught. In prison, he killed no one.
Look, Tookie had to die. Putting a man in prison for killing people is not a sufficient penalty for the crime. If Tookie had killed my son, should I not be allowed to kill Tookie, if the government won't do it? Why are you so concerned about the plight of the murderer and not the victims of the crime? Seriously, when I see a prison full of convicted murderers, all I can think of are all the families of all the victims and all the funerals, all the wakes, all the loss. When I run that through my head, I ask myself, why are the murderers even alive. It simply isn't fair that victims of a murder have to go through a funeral(s), while the perpretrators get to keep their family member. It isn't fair.
This is tiring, and the rest of your sermon looks like blatant demagoguery, so I think I'll leave it at that for now. Next time, try to bring an argument that makes sense perhaps?
Make sense? Let's see. You are the one that argues that someone who kills three people deserves a greater shot at life than a child that hasn't even been born yet. If that's what you call logic, then I'll gladly be ill-logical.
My whole point, which you obviously missed, is that there is nothing inherently special about being human
I am human. That's what makes my humanity special. You're argument is to assume that there is a natural notion of equality, and there isn't. Humans are demonstrably better than other animals. We are smarter, and therefor, we have the ability to do what we will.
Because it is based on logic and reason, and not on the hopelessly outdated superstitions of a random Middle Eastern tribe from the Bronze Age who thought that the Earth was flat and was created 2,000 years after the Babylonians invented beer.
And you are basing yours on an animistic earth worship that predates even that. You believe that every living thing has some sort of a spirit within it. And honestly, the fact of the matter is, if there is no god, the earth is just a rock, and it doesn't matter one whit if human beings exterminate all of the bears, lions and tigers. You have this fantastic assumption that you can make a deal with a biosystem, as if, a giant rock whirling around a ball of fusing hydrogen gas is capable of signing and living up to a contract. There is no such quid pro quo. There is only survival of the best, and the people with the most guns win.
Your transparently obvious beliefs in the soul and Heaven and Hell are the only possible explanation for being stupid enough to be pro-life. By calling abortion murder, you reveal your morality to be derived from ancient magic books instead of logic and rational thinking. This disqualifies you from rational discourse.
No. I see pictures of children in the womb. I see them react to stimuli. I know that, many of them survive if born prematurely, and therefor, they are alive. The science is there, the images are there. Quite logically, by any stretch of the imagination, those unborn children are human.
If you want to rationalize killing them, arguing about population, crime, the planet, ensuring racial balances, whatever, then go ahead. But, you are lying if you really think a baby isn't human.
ny dog or cat, not to mention chimpanzee or dolphin, has a vastly greater capacity for both suffering and self-awareness than any newborn human infant, let alone a human fetus or embryo.
My dog could understand me better than someone who speaks Farsi. That's not a good test, now is it? What is your test for determining what is human, and what is not, and why is that test any better than mine. Go ahead and say that you require birth to be human, but then, answer me this, why could I not say that only christians are humans? don't get all emotional about it. Just answer the question logically. What gives your proclamation of humanity any better than mine, and can there really be any best definition? The answer to that, I will tell you, is no, and that's the underlying logical problem with abortion. If you can disenfranchise or enfranchise humanity, then so can I, and our definitions do not have to agree!
So my work here is done. Goodbye.
Wow, you call that work? My oh my. And what did you accomplish with that? I hope you feel better about yourself.
Word. Whenever that happens to me these days I laugh and read this xkcd strip: http://xkcd.com/386/.
I fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. That made my day. Thank you!
My salty advice to you: RTFA. Stop being a dualist. Talk about issues and not talking points with loaded questions. Less terrible logic on tangents that excuse your vices and more analysis with a focus on the topic at hand. Peace.
Well, you have to look at my remarks in the context in which they were applied. I pointed out that basically everyone is a racist and so to get bent out of shape over Obama's preacher was silly. In fact, I even went and suggested that I thought that if even if Obama didn't like white people (and I think its pretty reasonable to think at least his wife doesn't), that, I don't think that would make him a less effective president. I think that is a pretty progressive position to take and that was the issue.
Now, some guy jumped all over me and pointed out that conservatives are "more" evil and liberals are all saints, so I obliged him with a debate. He didn't want a discussion of the issues. He wanted a flame war, and so I gave him one, largely because, I've found that sometimes people just want to fight and so long as you can keep your wits about you, that can be ok too.
The difference between your "liberals" and your "conservatives" is that your conservatives (and presumably, you) care more about what car the government allows them to drive than who they are allowed to marry.
Well, from my perspective, I think the country right now has bigger problems to worry about than what gay people do. But, if I do wade in... I'm basically pro-gay marriage.
Government is about protecting the rights of people to private property, and so it follows that government should respect property. Marriage is, at a legal level, a property / asset sharing arrangement traditionally made to support child rearing, but, I think we could decouple a hetero nuclear family marriage from some other sorts of marriages and so allow for things like wills, deeds, transfers, alimony, etc, for people that are gay. So ultimately, if a couple wants to enter into a contract of marriage, its really their right to engage in that contract. You can't say that some kind of people are allowed to have a particular contract, while others are not, otherwise, you dispossess people of their right to property by denying them the right to provision it as they see fit.
Now of course, the ultimate question is, should the government be involved in marriage at all? I would have to think that the answer to that is no, however, it is in the government's interest to encourage hetero marriage and child rearing because population growth allows us to pay for all of our entitlement schemes and its ultimately good for the economy, and raising a child in a marriage is the preferred way to do it (although not the only way, for sure). So that's different from what gay marriage brings to the table, but at the same time, being as I am anti-abortion, I'd rather have a gay couple adopt a kid then see one being aborted, so, even there, the idea of a gay marriage as being different, in a legal sense, mind you, isn't so significant as one might believe. Of course, they are hugely different relationships, but, one has to wonder if those are differences of the sort the government has any business regulating and I think the answer to that is 'no'.
But then you descend into painting all liberals with the same wide brush...and then go on and say divisive things yourself about people who disagree with you.
Well, I'm only really doing it because the particular poster I am arguing is a militant liberal and he's come out with the usual lib speech on his side, so therefor, I felt that I should oblige him in some way with the usual conservative speech because, he's actually -not- interested in compromise and would rather take the sharp road and debate for the sport of it. Were I talking with someone more moderate, I wouldn't be painting things that way and would naturally tend to seek a more accommodating position.
What a fool you (and the 25% of people who agree with you) are. OK, Bush's approval might be a few points above 25%, like 29% now and 27% in February, bouncing around that range for nearly a year. But what's the difference? What kind of contrived nonsense that I'm "dividing the country" by refusing to make a distinction without a difference?
The kind of nonsense that someone who ignores that people kill people with guns (and their environment with trucks) will happily ignore in your faithy paradise. You will change your life, whether the government, the economy or nature makes you. BUt since I care about my life more than yours that you're wasting dragging the rest of us down, I'm happy to see you divided from the weapons you're fatuously insisting on playing with.
See, now you are changing the story. The fact of the matter is, you claimed that we were being divisive, and now, all of sudden, come the rationalizations for why you want to take away might rights. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I have a right to my truck. You are not taking that away. If you try, then there will be civil war. It's really that simple. You do not have a right to steal my possessions because of your pathological need to feel safe.
So while I'm happy to benefit from the catastrophe you Republicans have wrought on our country,... try and stop it
Why are all the subprime states Democratic states? Just checking....the fact of the matter is, the national economy is being dragged down by cities and states that Democrats have driven into the ground. Look at Michigan. Look at Cleveland. In fact, let's all have a look at Illinois. Democrats have looted those places for years, and now that all the businesses have left, to avoid getting further raped, you go and cry fowl. I mean, seriously. You claim to want to create jobs, and claim to value opportunity, but, at the same time, any time a corporation tries to set up shop in a Democratic state, they get taxed to the hilt, all the construction is blocked by environmental lawsuits, and then the crooks come in looking for a few favors to get the commissioner a new deck, and then, finally, when that's all done, the union marches in, demands a cut of the paycheck of every worker, and in the end, delivers nothing but a bunch of swimming pools for the heads of unions compliments of the so-called union pensions for workers.
It's a sad joke.
You know, Obama might well win the election. Your side always has been good at scaring people into believing that they are not capable of charting their own destiny, that, they need bullies and thugs like you to protect them (so that you can steal from these people you claim to protect). It's ironic, I suppose, in that, as much as you protest Republican fear mongering on the war on terror, you do it for nearly every other aspect of a person's live. You want to steal power so that you can stop guns, cars, private schools, private clubs, tvs, imports, trade, communications, radio talk shows, corporations, companies, along with every productive enterprise in the United States. We've seen the track record of your economic policies - the protectionist fear mongering that prolonged the Great Depression, the 1960s liberalism that ruined a generation, and now, in the shadow of all that wreckage, there's a handful of people getting ahead and getting out, and your answer is to destroy them too because you can't stand to see someone succeed.
So, the moral of the story is, you can talk about being patriotic and helping out america as much as you want, but, you aren't seeking to build anything. You are seeking to drag other people down so you and your buddies can cash in on the patronage jobs and make-work industries. Patriots add value to the country, and you don't.
Well, at least you're nuts.
Well now, that I won't deny!
don't claim "moral" superiority. I claim intellectual superiority, and whatever kind of superiority honesty gives me. You can claim only the lies and hypocrisy that Republicans earn with your projections of all your own worst fears about your own major malfunctions onto the people who care to tell the truth about you, who try to stop the damage you've unloaded that everyone can see is destroying everything you touch.
You don't have either. You are not intellectually better, and you are not honest with yourself.
But par for the course to hear some kind of contrived argument that it's "divisive" for judging people like you whose unregulated guns and trucks are actually killing people every day, and even threatening our entire civilization.
Guns don't kill people. People do. And you are divisive.
And no one but the 25% who still think Bush is god believes you. Zero tolerance for you faithy, crooked Republicans.
See, now that's divisive, because, about 35% of the people still approve of Bush. So, you can't claim zero tolerance for 35% of society, and not call yourself divisive. You just divided society! And then, there are a lot of people who believe in owning firearms as a fundamental human right. There are a lot of people that drive trucks responsibly. Now, you go and divide them too. See, you just keep dividing away, ever blissfully ignorant that your own totalitarian impulses are what is really dividing the country. Me, I just want low taxes and to keep my guns and my truck, but you, you attack me. And yet, I'm divisive for not wanting to change my life for your damaged view of the world. Why, didn't you already say you were a poor, abused victim of the evil corporations? Joining you would be the same as trying to team up with a kicked dog. You need, help, my poor victimized, disenfranchised friend, not political power. Best to leave the country to us, since you can't even pay your mortgage.
That is so true... I do not consider myself racist at all, however just a week ago I took the bus home and at some stop 3 black guys who I thought were about 20 got on the bus. I can't deny my first reaction was to get nervous.
It's very true. When you are fed a daily diet, on both the left and the right, of "angry black men, angry white men, angry latino men", all coming to get you, then, you react to it. Your eyes, as Obi Wan once said, "can deceive you, don't trust them." It takes courage to be a decent citizen.
Those preachers have the "guts and conviction" to recognize that a collection of cells in a womb that isn't conscious isn't a human being. They might still be mired in superstition, but at least they're not tricked into thinking that everything with a human shape is a human.
Well, then, if you can say that something with a human shape isn't human, then you have reserved yourself the right to judge what humanity is. So, why would it be so wrong for someone else to claim the same right?
Meanwhile, "pro-life" Republicans like you are desperate to send American soldiers to kill and die for nothing but lies and greed. You set yourself up as judges who take the lives of accused criminals, even when many are proven to be executed without even being guilty. You demand politicians who strip government of its powers to protect people's lives and health, leaving the weak to die early and suffer while they live, so some rich corporate owners can squeeze pennies from them.
No, we send soldiers to kill and die because they are fighting an enemy that has been the historic bane of the existence of western civilization for 1500 years. We set ourselves up as judges to execute murderers because, frankly, I think someone like Tookie deserved to be executed. I demand politicians strip government of the powers to use the people as an excuse to extort the common man for political patronage jobs, and I believe that humans are not weak, but are capable, and can earn the living. We believe that corporations are not evil and for the most part, those who are rich got there because they risked a lot and worked more, and we certainly do not believe that we should be required to subsidize those people that do neither, except on our own terms. We believe that people have the right to the fruits of their labors, you do not. We believe that people have the right to their own free expression, and you do not. We believe that people have the right to their religious beliefs, and you do not. We believe that people have the right to choose whom they should associate with, and you do not. We believe that most people can responsibly own private property, even firearms, and you do not. You can demagogue the rich as much as you like, but at the end of the day, your solution is make everyone a slave of the state so you can waltz around like Napolean the Pig in Animal Farm, being more equal than others, simply because you are a bigger bully than the rest. Well, if you are so brave, my friend, instead of complaining about how you do not have enough, and seek to steal it from others, why not go and earn more!
Just because Republicans have lowered American politics to divisive attacks irrelevant to facts, but playing on the worst impulses of Americans doesnt' mean we all have to accept it. Not when there's an alternative
You know why a lot of Republicans go listen to Pat Robertson - its because he preaches less than you!
It's your side that makes divisive attacks because you continually view the world as haves and have nots. Every time one of you liberals does not have something, instead of blaming your lot in life on your own dumb decisions, you have to make yourself the victim of some nefarious conspiracy.
Indeed, as much as liberals bemoan any conservative social initiatives, they see absolutely no need to attempt to reason or compromise their own point of view, and would have government ram it down the throats via the congress if elected, and through the courts if not. It is not conservatives that want to mandate what kind of houses people buy, what kind of cars people own, whether or not they have guns, or how they manage their money. Nope, that's all liberals, arguing, divisively, that they have the right to impose their social point of view on everyone in the country because their cause is 'morally right'.
It's absurd. There's no moral superiority in the left. It rationalizes racism against white people, and its environmental stances are a joke. You are innately divisive, because you judge people on everything.
Here's just one environmental example: Where's Sierra Club and MoveOn about estrogens from birth control leaching into environment? We have a controlled experiment in Canada where they took a lake, dumped 1 part in a -trillion- of birth control into it, and it lowered the birth rates of a number of species and caused deformities in others. It's solid, repeatable science, birth control at dosage levels equivalent to people peeing destroys aquatic life in the environment. Case closed. But... there's not a single word about this issue. But, god forbid, if someone buys an SUV, or owns a rifle, they are an evil destroyer of the environment. The moral of the story is, while you are complaining about someone destroying the atmosphere by owning a truck, bear in mind that you have most likely killed all of the frogs in the western world so you can get laid. And then, if killing all the frogs isn't good enough, you go and kill your offspring like so much tissue. You talk about sustainable living and having good practices, and here you are wrecking the planet and killing millions of unborn children so that you can pretend reproduction is a recreational pasttime.
There's no moral superiority on your side, and you don't need to come out like a bunch of thugs and pretend that there is, because I'm not and no one else is going to believe it. But if you go and say, well, here's what I want out of government, then, maybe there's room for compromise.
Except the facts are that Republicans actually embrace rightwing bigot preachers, while all we have here on "the Left" is a preacher who occasionally gets angry at the facts of America's killing innocent people and institutionalized racism. Hell, Pat Robertson ran for president as a Republican, and got millions of Republican votes. That's a pretty definite association. And every Republican president or candidate for it has sought and received Robertson's and Falwell's enthusiastic endorsement - not just sat in their church once in a while.
Spare the supposed outrage about killing innocent people when your we-hate-america preachers lack the guts and the conviction to say these are human beings.
Falwell
:-)
Falwell doesn't hold sway with anyone right now, because he's dead.
Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
That's silly. Everyone knows someone that is a racist, and really, truth be told, we are all probably racist on some level. Faulting Obama for knowing someone who is a racist is like faulting someone for watching TV. It's just that common. Granted, I'd use it in a political debate on slashdot because I'm a troll that way, but the reality is, we're all a bit racists and we just have to confront that rather than pretend that listening to a bit of hip hop every now and then makes us culturally better. It's not how we think when we see people that matters as much - that whole approach is catholic guilt applied to race. But, its, do we judge people on the merits of their ideas, not the color of their skin.
Honestly, I don't care if the Obamas don't like white people in their core, and crack "cracker jokes" over family outings, so long as they run the country well when they are in there. I mean, if Obama is hanging out in the office saying "I gotta deal with these toothless white trash" so long as he balances the budget, gets the economy on track, and brings peace to the country, then, who cares?
Pretty silly to impute the remarks of another onto a candidate.
It is, but all's fair in love and politics. The Left tars the Right for years for associating with its round of the religious right. So, its entirely fair for the Right to hit the Left back on its associations with racist organizations. If Republicans are the party of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as the left likes to say, then certainly, it is fair to paint Democrats as the Party of Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.