So… what does this have to do with Obama?
I don’t get what’s so terribly offensive about Wright’s sermons. I don’t agree with all of it, but I can at least see where he’s coming from.
Browsing the news articles today, I found a wealth of ignorance left by commentors on the articles. I couldn’t help but think,”Oh look, white Republicans ganging up on a black Democrat because his pastor–not he, but his pastor made comments that reflect ugly truths and perceptions of white Americans, things you white Republicans aren’t comfortable acknowledging about yourselves. Then, without even willing to look at why you’re being criticized (since understanding is a catalyst for resolution), you simply make a judgment about a man based on comments FROM HIS PASTOR. His pastor, who you’re labeling a bigot while refusing to accept a shred of responsibility for the things he’s angry about.” Who’s the hypocrite again?
What gets me about it is that these are comments from people–and you can tell by their arguments–who wouldn’t have voted for Obama anyway. It’s made by people who are looking at this as a way to justify their already-racist attitudes. Is race involved in this election? Hell yes it is. When you read the tripe these people regurgitate, it becomes quite obvious.
A good percentage of them were only regurgitating what they heard on Limbaugh. I caught part of his racist diatribe during lunch and hit the refresh button on one of these stories, only to see it filled with comments that weren’t merely inspired by Limbaugh’s statements, but were directly plagiarized, at times word-for-word! Republicans are such sheep.
Anyway, I don’t think the pastor believes that white people are the root of all evil. In fact, nowhere did I see him even suggest that. But from a black perspective race is important, especially–especially–considering this country’s history. I think we can all agree that there are issues within the black community that can’t be fixed by any amount of reparations or actions by whites, things that need to be dealt with from within, but that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. People ought to take this into consideration when weighing the Pastor’s statements.
In addition to that, I can’t find any fault with what he said. That Hillary had it easier than Barack? He makes a good case for it. Is the idea that maybe we were responsible for 9/11, maybe even had it coming, so outlandish? Tell that to the 9/11 Commission, the Iraq Study Group, numerous political scientists and foreign policy specialists. Tell it to the intelligence community. Tell it to the people of the Middle East. Tell it to Palestinians.
The blowback phenomenon works almost like a law of physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” When we grant Israel a license to do whatever it damn well pleases while we turn a blind eye to their crimes against humanity, we would be reasonable to assume there would be consequences. When we attack foreign countries based on lies while arming their enemies, it would be reasonable to think that there would be resentment. When we allow our corporations to run amok in these areas, it is reasonable to believe that we may be viewed in a negative light. It is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary to assume that when we employ an unjust foreign policy towards a region, their people will hate us. It is insane to ignore the fact that every person killed as a result of our policies has friends and relatives who wish to avenge them.
It is reasonable, my friends, to draw a line connecting our actions in the Middle East and the attacks of 9/11 as a direct repercussion. The attacks were evil, but they were not random, and they were not unprovoked. No, I don’t find anything wrong with the Pastor’s thinking.
Now we’ve got the Conserfascists demanding that Obama outlines which parts he does agree with (copying this line from Limbaugh, like everything else they think), rather than simply saying he doesn’t agree with certain parts. Apparently, to a conservative, this is an Ace-in-the-Hole argument, even though it’s not an argument. They reason that even though he may not agree with certain statements, he’s been listening to 20 years worth of these sermons, so he must agree with some of what he says (never failing to add foreboding finger-pointing Republican emphasis).
The truth is, like I said before, these people weren’t voting Obama anyway. They’re happily going to vote for whatever bum the Republicans squeeze out of their dookie-holes. In this case, John McCain is the turd they’re willing to sniff for the next 4-8 years. I, however, smell another foulness on the air. You see, most of the time, Republicans don’t even give a shit about the Democratic candidate until one has been chosen. This year, however, they’re all over it. If you ask me, I think it’s part of their little fraudulent conspiracy to put Hillary Clinton on the ballot. Scumbags.
Tags: Elections, Obama, Politics, Race, Republican Scumbaggery
March 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Nothing is below these scumbags. When you are full of hate, why you spit lies and vitriol. Plain and simple. And most of all a Republican can never, ever take responsibility for their actions or inactions. Any fault or error by definition is someone else’s fault.
Knowledge is unwanted in this group. So is understanding. Having either one might then get you labeled an intellectual, which is well known as code for liberal. The ability to engage those who disagree with you is a weakness. And the bullshit will go on until we all drown in it.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Watching CSPAN tonight, I was floored by the sheer volume of non-sequitur arguments made by the Republicans (and Bush, in the NY Economic Club meeting) regarding the FISA bill. Their reasoning? “Grant immunity to our wonderful” (they don’t mention “unlawful” or “spying”) “corporations or we’re not doing our job to protect the American people from terrorists.” What? I need to blog about this.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
In response to Jimi Moore’s comment:
Please, you don’t think the Clinton’s have their fingerprints all over this Pastor Wright issue as well? You do exactly what you suggests Republicans do. You fail to take any responsibility for the actions of democrats in this farce. You are taking down your own party. The repubs don’t NEED to help. Not saying they aren’t, only that they don’t need to. The first sentence where you call all Repubs “scumbags” and then accuse THEM of being full of hate is laughable, but right on target for democratic thinking. The original blog is just as bad. He professes that “[these people are] happily going to vote for whatever bum the Republicans squeeze out of their dookie-holes” ROFL. Many of “these people” are democrats backing HRC. Sorry to rain on the Obama victory parade.
Physician, heal thyself.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Physician, heal thyself.”
But sir, nary a wound was inflicted!
Republicans’ part in the scumbaggery is voting for Clinton in an attempt to disrupt the Democratic primaries. Conservatives are able to sleep at night by telling themselves they’re not subverting democracy, because Democrats crossed over to vote for McCain. This is categorically false, and, I don’t mind saying, makes Republicans look like utter dolts. In a historically, epically contested primary, hardly a single Democrat would waste their vote by trying to get McCain nominated to help win the general election. But, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night.
As for the Clintons, I don’t know whether they have their fingerprints on this one or not. But if they did, I’m the last person on earth who’d be surprised. The one thing that has been proven above all else is how excessively understated the depth of her divisiveness truly is.
I do have to take a moment to laugh, address, then laugh again about your claim that the so-called “Left” are hatemongers. You just don’t get it, do you? The right consistently maligns us as being communist, unpatriotic, anti-American, anti-values, anti-religious moral reprobates, then in the same breath call gays less-than-human, support torture, are at times blatantly anti-Muslim (or any other religion that isn’t Protestant), blatantly oppose African American interests, support profit-at-any-cost corporations who defraud the public and systematically abuse workers overseas, then support legislation which makes us less free, all while beating the “we’re the freest country in the world” drum but ignoring that while we’re not the most populous country in the world, we have the most people in prison, mainly due to laws that are aimed at the non-rich–and you call us the hateful ones. Conservatives fight against the “intellectual establishment,” which, because I’m confused, doesn’t make much sense. Last I checked, to be smart enough to be considered an “intellectual” was a good thing, but the Right claims they’re trying to enslave us all yet say it while defending the totalitarian merits of the GOP-preferred FISA bill.
Anyway, it would take a Cray supercomputer to calculate all the times Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have spewed nonsense about “liberal hate” while actively and PROUDLY condoning hatred of anyone who sits to the left of Jessie Helms. Let’s not even get into how many times their followers have mindlessly parroted these sentiments without actually knowing a single liberal outside the internet.
Yet, when liberals fight back and call you out on it, we’re hateful. Shame on you. That’s like saying someone is hateful for calling a person who thinks other races are inferior a racist, or for calling someone who rapes people a rapist. What we’re doing is calling a spade a spade. Don’t like it? Then don’t vote for people who do shady, scumbag things.
You say we’re hateful and anti-American because we are brave enough to recognize and address the problems with this country. We’re willing to examine our shortcomings not to put America down, but in hopes of fixing it. When Republicans, and Conservatives in particular say that Liberals hate America because we bitch about what’s wrong with it, it’s akin to saying a son hates his father because he points out that he has an addiction, or that a sister hates her brother because she points out that he has problems. Nevermind that the son loves his father, and the sister loves her brother–according to you, we shouldn’t address their shortcomings, we should just throw them in prison, right? It never occurs to the Right that the child and sibling say something because they want to help. They want to see the person–in Liberals case, the country–get better. Believe it or not, it’s not about hate. It’s about love.
I also noticed that you’re using an anonymous email address. The Republican’s take on it: “Privacy does not mean Anonymity.” Enjoy it while you can. I blogged about it awhile back, if you care to take a look. Anyway, I don’t think all Republicans are scumbags. Nobody I know thinks every Republican fits that title. But the Republican party does things like this (and, yes, Democrats do scummy things to at times), and its supporters don’t say a word. Look at the issue of torture. I’ll bet if I asked any Republican five years ago whether they could ever see the U.S. torturing people, I guarantee you they’d have to think about it. They’d have to get back to me on it, because it’s a serious issue that requires deep thought. What it should do is provide an ethical dilemma in the people’s minds. “Could I ever do this? How would I feel about being tortured? Is this what America really stands for?” But nowadays, it’s knee-jerk. “FUCK YES, TORTURE THOSE BASTARDS!” No thought. No ethical dilemma. No internal struggle. That’s pretty scumbag-ish, if you ask me. Seems to be that way with every issue, anymore. When I apply the broad term, this is one of many cogs in the clockwork that brings me there.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
[…] knew I was taking a gamble by defending Pastor Wright a few weeks ago. I knew that until I saw the video, I wouldn’t have an informed opinion or a solid defense of […]