McCain seeks Bigot endorsements

[Crowley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgkn_DvBpio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mtqucMUX9M

And McCain from this Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZD-Hn4SitY

So McCain is A-OKay with the endorsement of a guy who hates Gays, Catholics and thinks the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina.

Not to mention this asshole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUPkHyvNPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gg621-DrmU

Supporter "You can have your Tiger Woods!"

So McCain is A-OKay with racists and bigots supporting him... so much for straight talk.

[KevinTBrown]

You act shocked by this....

Truth be told, it's not surprising. Now here's hoping either Clinton or Obama or, better yet, BOTH call McCain on it.

[Karl J Barnes]

Nice that the biography,Pure Goldwater written by Barry Goldwater Jr. and John Dean comes out soon. The elder Goldwater didn't have too many complimentary things to say about McCain either.

[Crowley]

Yeah any integrity McCain had is pretty much nil now.

He's a scumbag of the first order.

[beetlebum]

Nice that the biography,Pure Goldwater written by Barry Goldwater Jr. and John Dean comes out soon. The elder Goldwater didn't have too many complimentary things to say about McCain either.

Yeah, people like to bash Barry, but people must remember that Barry went on to oppose the Vietnam War, and, later on in life, championed gay rights, and women's reproductive rights as well.

I used to like McCain. Although I do respect him for his service to our country, I just don't think I would like seeing him elected as our next president.

[PatrickG]

Supporter "You can have your Tiger Woods!"


I can have Tiger Woods? I'll take him.

Tell McCain he can have his own golf pro meet mine on the fairway and we'll go eighteen holes to determine who gets the Oval office.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Doesn't surprise me.

[Crowley]

Don't forget what he called his wife:

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

Foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w--TwyU
McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."
He thinks Putin is President of Germany:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E5ENwej0fpc

Economy:
At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he “doesn’t really understand economics” and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm - whom he had brought with him to the meeting - as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned.

Hyppocricy:

His words on the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related

Campaign Finance:
John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, according to spending reports filed last week by the campaign.

The senator from Arizona has spent $58.4 million on his Republican primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid.

If elected he'll be even worse than Bush.

[ShaunN]

Yes, I find this absolutely fascinating. I've been reading about the Hagee thing for quite a while now and it was a feature on the "Daily Show" last night.

So, the obvious question: if people can get really upset and question Obama's credentials over his association with Rev. Wright, then why isn't there a similar outcry about Hagee? At least, in my view anyway, Wright has some legitimate things to say and his words must be understood in the context of his experiences as an older African American man. Hagee seems to have none of those "excuses". His words are outright inflammatory - he is attacking specific groups of people for being of the wrong religion, sexual orientation or (implicitly) race. But McCain gratefully accepts his endorsement and the US media says virtually nothing about this? Why? And will this become an election issue if McCain goes up against Obama or Clinton?

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Corrina]

Yeah, people like to bash Barry, but people must remember that Barry went on to oppose the Vietnam War, and, later on in life, championed gay rights, and women's reproductive rights as well.

I used to like McCain. Although I do respect him for his service to our country, I just don't think I would like seeing him elected as our next president.

Barry opposed the federal Civil Rights Acts on the theory that it interfered with local rule. It's possible, even probable, that he believed this without being a racist of any sort but the effect was that he was on the very wrong side in the civil rights struggle. He couldn't see that it wasn't a local issue.

OTOH, he stuck with his ideological position, which basically boiled down to "the more the government stays out of my life, the better."

Which meant that he was against the government giving a damn if you were gay or lesbian and against the government telling a women what she could do with her body. And he was against the religious right movement to legislate morality, famously telling saying that every good Christian should kick Jerry Fallwell in the ass.

It also put him on the side of opposing any rules on guns or firearms. I'm not as familiar with the reasoning against the Vietnam War but I suspect it had to do with the government getting too big and going against the will of the people--earlier, though, he'd certainly been in favor of actions to put down communism.

He had integrity, there was never any hint of corruption around him, a good guy but if he'd been elected President, given his positions on civil rights and the fact that he originally saw the struggle in Vietnam as part of the struggle against the Soviet Union, I think it would have been a disaster had he been elected President.

As for McCain, he doesn't even have Goldwater's integrity.

[cactusmaac]

Yes, I find this absolutely fascinating. I've been reading about the Hagee thing for quite a while now and it was a feature on the "Daily Show" last night.

So, the obvious question: if people can get really upset and question Obama's credentials over his association with Rev. Wright, then why isn't there a similar outcry about Hagee? At least, in my view anyway, Wright has some legitimate things to say and his words must be understood in the context of his experiences as an older African American man. Hagee seems to have none of those "excuses". His words are outright inflammatory - he is attacking specific groups of people for being of the wrong religion, sexual orientation or (implicitly) race. But McCain gratefully accepts his endorsement and the US media says virtually nothing about this? Why? And will this become an election issue if McCain goes up against Obama or Clinton?

Sincerely,

Shaun

People can differentiate between McCain getting an endorsement from someone he barely knows and Obama sitting in the church of a man who baptised his children, officiated at his marriage and was a confidante for twenty years. During which his diatribes about the US government creating AIDS as a genocidal tool against the black man got a regular airing.

As for Goldwater, the libertarian stances he took came long after he'd retired from active politics. McCain to his credit, supported sanctions against South Africa and establishing MLK Day as a national holiday when his party opposed it.

[rick]

McCain to his credit, supported sanctions against South Africa and establishing MLK Day as a national holiday when his party opposed it.

No, and no.

McCain was publicly against the establishment of the King holiday, and just recently admitted his error in voting against sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid era.

So what the hell are you talking about?

[Huh?]

People can differentiate between McCain getting an endorsement from someone he barely knows and Obama sitting in the church of a man who baptised his children, officiated at his marriage and was a confidante for twenty years. During which his diatribes about the US government creating AIDS as a genocidal tool against the black man got a regular airing.I agree with you that McCain's situation is different than Obama's, because these guys have no control over who endorses them. But, I thought the Obama situation was blown way out of proportion.

[rick]

I agree with you that McCain's situation is different than Obama's, because these guys have no control over who endorses them. But, I thought the Obama situation was blown way out of proportion.


They might not have control over who endorses them, but at the same time, McCain has publicly embraced the Hagee endorsement.

And yes, the whole Wright "issue" is nothing but an overblown attempt to discredit Obama by proxy.

That's probably true for the McCain Hagee thing too.

[jesse_custer]

Personally, I think discussing endorsements is a waste of time. It's just one more way of distracting us from the issues that really matter.

[Huh?]

They might not have control over who endorses them, but at the same time, McCain has publicly embraced the Hagee endorsement.

And yes, the whole Wright "issue" is nothing but an overblown attempt to discredit Obama by proxy.

That's probably true for the McCain Hagee thing too.Well, I can see your point, and I guess I would like to see McCain approach it in similar fashion to Obama by denouncing the specific things that are vile about the person, but accepting the support none the less.

In the end, though, it really doesn't matter if somebody else likes the guy/girl, its about whether you like him/her.

[Spike-X]

Personally, I think discussing endorsements is a waste of time. It's just one more way of distracting us from the issues that really matter.
American flag lapel pins?

[KevinTBrown]

Yes, I find this absolutely fascinating. I've been reading about the Hagee thing for quite a while now and it was a feature on the "Daily Show" last night.

So, the obvious question: if people can get really upset and question Obama's credentials over his association with Rev. Wright, then why isn't there a similar outcry about Hagee? At least, in my view anyway, Wright has some legitimate things to say and his words must be understood in the context of his experiences as an older African American man. Hagee seems to have none of those "excuses". His words are outright inflammatory - he is attacking specific groups of people for being of the wrong religion, sexual orientation or (implicitly) race. But McCain gratefully accepts his endorsement and the US media says virtually nothing about this? Why? And will this become an election issue if McCain goes up against Obama or Clinton?

Sincerely,

Shaun


People will use the excuse that McCain didn't go to Hagee's church.

However, it's easier to equate this to when Farrakhan tried to endorse Obama and Obama denounced it. McCain never denounced Hagee's endorsement. If people are going to try to use Hagee against McCain, they should bring up Farrakhan.....

What's really scary is that Farrakhan and Hagee are very similar in their prejudice.

[Usernamessd]

They might not have control over who endorses them, but at the same time, McCain has publicly embraced the Hagee endorsement.

And yes, the whole Wright "issue" is nothing but an overblown attempt to discredit Obama by proxy.

That's probably true for the McCain Hagee thing too.

You continue to be a far-right tool,dont you?

[Spike-X]

You continue to be a far-right tool,dont you?
What the fuck, mate?

There's a couple of people here who fit that description. Rick is definitely not one of them.

[cactusmaac]

No, and no.

McCain was publicly against the establishment of the King holiday, and just recently admitted his error in voting against sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid era.

So what the hell are you talking about?

You're right about the holiday, but according to the link below, he voted against Reagan's veto of the anti-apartheid sanctions bill. He recently admitted his error in voting against the holiday.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/04/mccain_apologizes_for_opposing.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter9.html

[Christopher Cross Is God]

What the fuck, mate?

There's a couple of people here who fit that description. Rick is definitely not one of them.

He is when the subject is historical events.

[Gail Simone]

I think it's been clear for a long time that McCain will do anything to get elected. The myth of his personal 'renegade' stance is way, way overrated. Hillary seems to me to be painfully ambitious as well. But McCain does seem to get more of a pass.

[Pauly T]

McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

Well, to be clear, I am on record on this board saying that I don't think what Wright said was any big deal and, indeed, was defensible, given the context of his own life and experiences. If the worst he said was "God damn America" then that's not much of anything at all. If he had actively preached hatred of Jews, Hispanics, gays, women, or anything other specific group, that would be a different issue.

On the other hand, Hagee is actively condemning and invoking hatred towards particular groups. To my mind, that is a real problem. McCain's willingness to accept the endorsement could be seen to indicate that he is "alright" with Hagee's opinions of those groups.

Now, if you are a person who became excited about Wright because of Obama's presumed endorsement of Wright's views, then you should also be excited about Hagee and McCain. At the very least, for that person, the issues would seem to be the same. The fact that McCain does not attend Hagee's Chuch is hardly relevant. He is still accepting the endorsement.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Agent Helix]

McCain would suck dick on camera while waving a flag that says Fags Die in Fires if he thought it would net him a swing state. The man has zero integrity, and has proven it time and again through policy and through practice.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I think it's been clear for a long time that McCain will do anything to get elected. The myth of his personal 'renegade' stance is way, way overrated. Hillary seems to me to be painfully ambitious as well. But McCain does seem to get more of a pass.


Yeah, I loved his transparent "politics is corrupt" schtick when he was running against Bush years back.......Yet McCain has long been a part of that same corruption he was pretending to speak out against.

There's also a lesser known fact that he tried to outlaw the sport of mixed martial arts, yet he's a strong proponent of boxing. Hypocrisy was abound on that one, given all the deaths in boxing and the relatively clean record of MMA, but whatever.......It was pretty obvious McCain was simply trying to outlaw a (at the time) little known sport. He was rather eager to notch "abolished a barbaric form of human cockfighting" on his resume.

And not that it really matters, but McCain seems to have gone for plastic surgery for this current presidential race. He no longer seems to have half of his mouth drooping down abnormally when he speaks. From what I understood, that physical defect was a result of his days as a POW............For the record, I'm no Hilary supporter, but I find it laughable how McCain supporters make fun of Hilary's looks when McCain (pre or post-plastic surgery) isn't exactly the second coming of Rock Hudson.

[KevinTBrown]

McCain would suck dick on camera while waving a flag that says Fags Die in Fires if he thought it would net him a swing state. The man has zero integrity, and has proven it time and again through policy and through practice.


Well, now...... there's an image I can't get out of my mind!!! :eek:

Thanks a lot!



:tongue:

[Solaris]

I can have Tiger Woods? I'll take him.

Tell McCain he can have his own golf pro meet mine on the fairway and we'll go eighteen holes to determine who gets the Oval office.

Sorry: the Taxpayers can't afford the18 Hookers they'd try to hire, if McCain was told that.

[Samurai]

Dear Friends,

Well, to be clear, I am on record on this board saying that I don't think what Wright said was any big deal and, indeed, was defensible, given the context of his own life and experiences. If the worst he said was "God damn America" then that's not much of anything at all. If he had actively preached hatred of Jews, Hispanics, gays, women, or anything other specific group, that would be a different issue.

On the other hand, Hagee is actively condemning and invoking hatred towards particular groups. To my mind, that is a real problem. McCain's willingness to accept the endorsement could be seen to indicate that he is "alright" with Hagee's opinions of those groups.

Now, if you are a person who became excited about Wright because of Obama's presumed endorsement of Wright's views, then you should also be excited about Hagee and McCain. At the very least, for that person, the issues would seem to be the same. The fact that McCain does not attend Hagee's Chuch is hardly relevant. He is still accepting the endorsement.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Wright has preached constant and unremitting hatred against a racial group... white people. And I would not be at all surprised if he held a special hatred for some of the other groups you mentioned too.

[Spike-X]

Wright has preached constant and unremitting hatred against a racial group... white people.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/375997570_cb0febf477.jpg

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Wright has preached constant and unremitting hatred against a racial group...

What you're attempting to accuse Wright of sounds very similar to what you preach, yourself.

Although a stark difference would be, in your case, the term "racial group" in plural form.......That, and also, your constant rantings and unremitting hatred against a particular religion. :biggrin:

[Jack Zodiac]

Internet Five, Spike!

McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

Because he wants votes. The votes of stupid, impressionable assholes who follow John Hagee's twisted and fucked up words as law, but hey, they're still votes. Associating with Hagee, pursuing his support, doesn't say anything about McCain's beliefs, but it says a lot about his character, that he'd be willing to throw his hat in the ring of ridiculously crazy evangelicals just to get votes. That's even lower than slumming for the "barbecue vote."

[ShaunN]

Dear Samurai,

I don't think that there is any evidence that Wright has preached hatred against white people - unless you equate pointing out that African Americans have been oppressed by White Americans for a very long time as "hatred". This is tricky - when a systemic form of racism exists - which, by definition, means that one physically identifiable group has created structures and institutions that oppress another physically identifiable group - is it "hatred" to point this out? I think that it depends on how it is done and I've yet to see any evidence that Wright is preaching reverse-racism. (Maybe I just have not looked hard enough). Similarly, one would really need to bury one's head in the sand to deny that he has a point.

As for the other groups, I suspect that you are referring to Wright's comments about Israel. But being opposed to Israeli policies or actions or pointing out the obvious discrimination and abuse that goes on in Israel is hardly the same as being anti-Jewish. It's kind of like Israel's representative to the UN referring to Jimmy Carter as "bigot" -does anyone really believe this anymore and is the representative of a state that practices discrimination really in any position to accuse anyone else of "bigotry"?

Hagee is different, in my mind, because he is attacking other groups simply because they threaten his power base and his view of what the dominant powers in his world should be. He does not even have the excuse that he is speaking out against oppression or historical injustice - he is, in truth, attacking many of those who are already weak. (The Catholic Church being the exception here). That's quite different from Wright. After all, no one could claim that "white people" are "weak", particularly in this part of the world.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Corrina]

You continue to be a far-right tool,dont you?


Don't make statements where you have no knowledge. Unless you're a long time poster hiding under another username, you have very little information about Rick's political stance. In this case, you're absolutely dead wrong, which makes you look doubly an idiot, the first mistake being jumping into a thread where you're contributed nothing substantive to make said erroneous insult.

And yes, that's a moderator warning.

[KevinTBrown]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/375997570_cb0febf477.jpg

I just want to say that I love that pic. :biggrin:

Ok, back to the animosity.

[rick]

You continue to be a far-right tool,dont you?


And a fine hello to you too.

Not going to win many friends with that approach though.

[rick]

He is when the subject is historical events.


Really?

Interesting assertion.

How exactly am I historically "Right-Wing"?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

How exactly am I historically "Right-Wing"?

The same way you're not historically "Left-Wing."

[beetlebum]

Corrina just gave some of the reasons why I admire Goldwater as a politician. And yes, it was wrong that Barry opposed Civil Rights legislation, but it must be said that he was not opposed to them in principal, he just thought it was an issue that was best decided by the States (and clearly, he was wrong about that.)

And yes, Goldwater did become more open about his libertarian stances during the twilight of his career, but during the Seventies, he did play a part in getting Nixon to resign, and defending Taiwan.

But enough about Barry.

Let's go back to McCain.

You continue to be a far-right tool,dont you?

Rick's not a far right tool. In fact, he's actually a Democrat.

And he's someone who is not afraid to speak his mind, and who is willing to defend people who are essentially the underdogs in a fight (and I say this from personal experience.)

He's a really decent bloke once you get to know him

[Lester C.]

I don't follow politics much but how is this different from Hillary taking an endorsement and cash from Timberland a man who very vocally hates white people and cops.

[Royal]

McCain lobbied against martial artists, because "boxing felt threatened".

he went as far as to vote down basic grappling for our military in the 90's and called the Gracies "bloodthirsty barbarians".

[Dreadstar]

I don't follow politics much but how is this different from Hillary taking an endorsement and cash from Timberland a man who very vocally hates white people and cops.

It's just a game called connect the political dots. Once you realize that for the most part when you have a bunch of faceless campaign donors and photo ops it spells mountainous media molehill.

Plus an opportunity to equivocate over which side's tenuous connection is more damning.

frothfrothseethe

[Paul McEnery]

Rick's not a far right tool. In fact, he's actually a Democrat.

I believe this irony speaks for itself.











And besides, isn't the approved term "dupe"?

[Paul McEnery]

I don't follow politics much but how is this different from Hillary taking an endorsement and cash from Timberland a man who very vocally hates white people and cops.

Actually, it is a big deal. He's crawling to a bigot because the bigot is an influence peddler (pedlar?). That's pretty slimy, and shows we'd still have slimy crazy Christians having influence in the White House if McCain was elected.

[beetlebum]

C'mon Paul.

You can disagree with rick, but name calling is not necessary.

[KevinTBrown]

Rick's not a far right tool. In fact, he's actually a Democrat.

And he's someone who is not afraid to speak his mind, and who is willing to defend people who are essentially the underdogs in a fight (and I say this from personal experience.)

He's a really decent bloke once you get to know him
Yet another reason why I adore this woman.... :)

What's not to love when she uses the saying "decent bloke"....?

:wink:

[Paul McEnery]

C'mon Paul.

You can disagree with rick, but name calling is not necessary.

Someone reboot Beetle's sensayuma, stat!

[Lester C.]

Here the bottom line. Unless the eyes of the world are on them, politicians are whores who will take money from anyone. They have to be if they want to get elected. This is why there will never be lobby/campaign reform as they need the gravy train if they plan on arriving at the station. I don't like it, in point of fact I hate it, but it's never going to change as those who are in power/want power need a lot of capital to get and or stay elected.

[rick]

The same way you're not historically "Left-Wing."


That was not really a very clear answer on your part.

[rick]

He's a really decent bloke once you get to know him


That is just about the nicest thing I've been called in years.

Thank you. :smile:

[rick]

I believe this irony speaks for itself.

And besides, isn't the approved term "dupe"?


I always prefered Fellow Traveler myself.

It has such a cheery sound to it.

[Crowley]

McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

DING DING DING!

We have winner.

[Crowley]

I don't follow politics much but how is this different from Hillary taking an endorsement and cash from Timberland a man who very vocally hates white people and cops.

Because McCain sought the endorsement.

Look plenty of crazy groups will give money to every campaign that are crappy groups... Some random douchebag extremist donating to the candidates... I can let that pass. It's going to happen. Eventually the accounting might research the contribution and return the check or it slips through the cracks... whatever, happens.

the candidate seeking an endorsement and being okay with racist and bigoted comments is not okay.

[Crowley]

People can differentiate between McCain getting an endorsement from someone he barely knows and Obama sitting in the church of a man who baptised his children, officiated at his marriage and was a confidante for twenty years. During which his diatribes about the US government creating AIDS as a genocidal tool against the black man got a regular airing..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZD-Hn4SitY

STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of Senator Obama’s allies and others say
that you should condemn the comments of Reverend John Hagee, an
evangelical pastor…

MCCAIN: Oh, I do. And I did. I said, any comments that he made
about the Catholic church I strongly condemn, of course.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you solicited and accepted his endorsement?

MCCAIN: Yes, indeed. I did.And I condemned the comments that
he made concerning the Catholic church.
Notice he doesn't say he condemns his bigotted remarks against homosexuals?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his
endorsement?

MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. But I admire and respect Dr.
Hagee’s leadership of the — of his church. I admire and appreciate
his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of
Israel.

I condemn remarks that are made that has anything to do which is
condemning of the Catholic church, but — so…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: … no longer want his endorsement?

MCCAIN: I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks
that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. But thanks for asking.
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-mccain-on-abcs-this-week/
APRIL 20, 2008

So there you go... John McCain respects bigots and wants their endorsements.

[Samurai]

How is McCain, saying he condemns any remarks by Hagee that are "anti-anything", any worse than Obama, who has accepted endorsements from (and the help of) numerous bigots, racists, and even terrorist fund raisers while saying he either "didn't know" about their controversial remarks, or he "condemned them" while still continuing his relationship with them? Rev Wright, Raila Odinga, Farrakhan, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Hatem El-Hady, Tony Rezko, etc, etc... the list of assholes Obama hangs with or has endorsements from is a mile long, and all the left can keep whining about is 1 guy who endorsed McCain despite his condemning his words, Hagee. Try pulling the beam from your eye, Obama-camp, before complaining about the mote in McCain's...

[the4thpip]

So if Hagee ever made an comments that are anti-murder, anti-drugs, anti-abortion etc... McCain would condemn those?

"Anti-anything" is a ridiculous thing to say.

[Loren]

Notice he doesn't say he condemns his bigotted remarks against homosexuals?

Could be because McCain was specifically responding to criticism regarding Hagee's anti-Catholic comments. That was why Nancy Pelosi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/pelosi-blasts-mccain-over_n_90302.html) criticized him, after all. Hagee apparently has a long history of making anti-Catholic comments; but his record on homosexuality-related comments appear to be pretty much limited to that Katrina comment (which was also conflated with an accompanying suggestion that Katrina happened because of the US's lagging support for Israel).

[Royal]

McCain has accepted endorsements from (and the help of) numerous bigots, racists, and even terrorist fund raisers while saying he either know about their controversial remarks, or he still continuing his relationship with them. the list of assholes he hangs with or has endorsements from is a mile long, and all he can keep whining about is 1 guy. Obama.

I only changed one word.

This is why I take controversy during election season with a grain of salt.

[Loren]

Yes, I find this absolutely fascinating. I've been reading about the Hagee thing for quite a while now and it was a feature on the "Daily Show" last night.

So, the obvious question: if people can get really upset and question Obama's credentials over his association with Rev. Wright, then why isn't there a similar outcry about Hagee?

Um, isn't this very thread evidence that there *is* a similar outcry about Hagee? I mean, folks seem a lot more upset here than they did in the Wright thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=213549) (the initial post there was even of a "What's the big deal?" nature), and are questioning McCain's qualifications as a result.

As for further answers to your question, going beyond the web, three immediately come to mind. One is to observe that the Hagee story is obviously building steam, while Hagee's endorsement came in a little under two months ago. So it took about two months from instigating event until it became a topic of widespread discussion. As for Obama/Wright, Obama was in the race for over a year before the Wright controversy hit. Given what eventually came of it, I'm more surprised it took that LONG for the Wright story to break into the public consciousness.

Second is to remember that Obama is still in a heated contest, while McCain has had his nomination locked up for two months. The press and public IN GENERAL have paid more attention to Obama (and Clinton) than McCain, because that's where the action is right now. While Democrats are arguing amongst themselves, there's less interest in attacks on McCain. From a political strategy perspective, it would've been a lot more advantageous for the Democrats if the Hagee story broke in the fall, because now it'll be over and mostly forgotten by the time the general election race begins.

Third, Americans have a certain cynicism about the political process that makes it pretty easy to ignore or forget stuff like Hagee. We all know that politicians suck up to people they don't like all the time. We know that politicians compromise their true beliefs for political advantage. On the other hand, we also tend to assume that those same people are sincere in their personal lives.

We're seeing this play out right now with the Clinton camp and certain conservatives attacking Obama over his association with former Weatherman Bill Ayers. The critics want it to sound like Obama and Ayers were friends and close associates in their personal lives; Obama's defense is essentially that his and Ayers' relationship was not only limited, but also purely political. I'm inclined to agree with the latter, and I don't think the Ayers connection will get nearly the attention Wright did as a result. (That's not to say that the issue won't fester; the mere fact that Ayers was a terrorist makes even the most tenuous connection a rhetorically powerful one).

[Tobias March]

Um, isn't this very thread evidence that there *is* a similar outcry about Hagee? I mean, folks seem a lot more upset here than they did in the Wright thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=213549) (the initial post there was even of a "What's the big deal?" nature), and are questioning McCain's qualifications as a result.

Well this thread, this board in fact, could not be seen as illustrative of the current political climate. Obama's Wright speech is commonly seen as one of his best, yet there is still talk that the incident cost him dearly with white voters.

Now McCain goofs on economics, foreign policy, is entrenched in the war and is hemorrhaging money - yet no one is talking about his campaign being in trouble on the level of Obama's.

[ShaunN]

Dear Loren,

All good points. However, I tend to agree with Tobias on this. To date, the Hagee story has not picked up anything like the attention that the Wright story did. And, as I've stated, I think that the charges that were leveled against Obama during that kerfuffle have far more truth and traction in this particular situation between Hagee and McCain. You are correct in pointing out how long it took for the Wright story to become a full-blown crisis, but when it did, it was given constant attention by the US media. If the same thing happens with Hagee, then I will be happy to reconsider my comments. But, as Tobias has pointed out - and as was the subject of a NYT article a while ago - McCain has been given a bit of a "free pass" by the mainstream media. Until recently, many people made the same claim about Obama, particularly in reference to his race with Clinton, but I don't think that claim can be made anymore.

McCain has made numerous blunders and said some very suspicious things, particularly in his statements about foreign policy, supposedly his area of special expertise. Yet, he has been allowed to walk. The obvious example was his constant equation of Iran with Al Qaeda, something that he said several times but which was presented by the media as a one-time error. His general belligerence and the fact that he has constantly made the wrong decisions on FP while in the Senate should be issues of concern, but he keeps getting away with it. Of course, all of this may come out in the upcoming Presidential campaign, but we'll have to see. (And the fact that Hagee is, apparently, another Christian Zionist is deeply disturbing. This is why McCain sought him out? Well, it's not hard to see how much more destructive and bigoted US Middle Eastern foreign policy will become under McCain).

At any rate, we will see how this plays out. You are correct in pointing out that Obama is attracting much more attention because of the ongoing Democratic race, whereas McCain has his nominatoin sewed up. But I have the uncomfortable feeling that this situation may not change that much once the actual Presidential campaign starts.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Samurai]

I only changed one word.

This is why I take controversy during election season with a grain of salt.

No, you didn't. You changed 2 words (switched McCain and Obama where each is mentioned), and most importantly, you omitted the list of real examples that I cited because McCain doesn't have such a list. I made my point by citing the actual people, which you failed to do.

[Samurai]

Dear Loren,

All good points. However, I tend to agree with Tobias on this. To date, the Hagee story has not picked up anything like the attention that the Wright story did. And, as I've stated, I think that the charges that were leveled against Obama during that kerfuffle have far more truth and traction in this particular situation between Hagee and McCain. You are correct in pointing out how long it took for the Wright story to become a full-blown crisis, but when it did, it was given constant attention by the US media. If the same thing happens with Hagee, then I will be happy to reconsider my comments. But, as Tobias has pointed out - and as was the subject of a NYT article a while ago - McCain has been given a bit of a "free pass" by the mainstream media. Until recently, many people made the same claim about Obama, particularly in reference to his race with Clinton, but I don't think that claim can be made anymore.

McCain has made numerous blunders and said some very suspicious things, particularly in his statements about foreign policy, supposedly his area of special expertise. Yet, he has been allowed to walk. The obvious example was his constant equation of Iran with Al Qaeda, something that he said several times but which was presented by the media as a one-time error. His general belligerence and the fact that he has constantly made the wrong decisions on FP while in the Senate should be issues of concern, but he keeps getting away with it. Of course, all of this may come out in the upcoming Presidential campaign, but we'll have to see. (And the fact that Hagee is, apparently, another Christian Zionist is deeply disturbing. This is why McCain sought him out? Well, it's not hard to see how much more destructive and bigoted US Middle Eastern foreign policy will become under McCain).

At any rate, we will see how this plays out. You are correct in pointing out that Obama is attracting much more attention because of the ongoing Democratic race, whereas McCain has his nominatoin sewed up. But I have the uncomfortable feeling that this situation may not change that much once the actual Presidential campaign starts.

Sincerely,

Shaun

The Hagee story has gotten far more press than Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which is a much closer analogy between the situations. Both Farrakhan and Hagee are controversial people who are not close friends of the candidates, but have openly endorsed them.

Wright, on the other hand, has been Obama's personal friend and confidant for 20 years, his speeches have inspired Obama's book titles and shaped his views of the world, and Obama was caught lying publically about not knowing about Wright's bigotted statements until very recently, when in fact he writes in his book that the very 1st speech he heard from Wright, the one he says initially attracted him to the pastor, contained the same junk.

[Pauly T]

The Hagee story has gotten far more press than Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which is a much closer analogy between the situations. Both Farrakhan and Hagee are controversial people who are not close friends of the candidates, but have openly endorsed them.


Well, not really, since Obama did not seek Farrakhan's endorsement and rejected and denounced it.

McCain went to Hagee, asked for his endorsement, and has publicly said he's happy to have it.

[Crowley]

The Hagee story has gotten far more press than Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which is a much closer analogy between the situations. Both Farrakhan and Hagee are controversial people who are not close friends of the candidates, but have openly endorsed them.

Wright, on the other hand, has been Obama's personal friend and confidant for 20 years, his speeches have inspired Obama's book titles and shaped his views of the world, and Obama was caught lying publically about not knowing about Wright's bigotted statements until very recently, when in fact he writes in his book that the very 1st speech he heard from Wright, the one he says initially attracted him to the pastor, contained the same junk.

Except that... Wright isn't racist.

Oh and McCain SOUGHT the Hagee endorsment.

But hey let's not let the agenda be weighed down by facts there, Sam.

[Crowley]

The Hagee story has gotten far more press than Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which is a much closer analogy between the situations. Both Farrakhan and Hagee are controversial people who are not close friends of the candidates, but have openly endorsed them.

Wright, on the other hand, has been Obama's personal friend and confidant for 20 years, his speeches have inspired Obama's book titles and shaped his views of the world, and Obama was caught lying publically about not knowing about Wright's bigotted statements until very recently, when in fact he writes in his book that the very 1st speech he heard from Wright, the one he says initially attracted him to the pastor, contained the same junk.

Except that... Wright isn't racist.

Oh and McCain SOUGHT the Hagee endorsment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZD-Hn4SitY

STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of Senator Obama’s allies and others say
that you should condemn the comments of Reverend John Hagee, an
evangelical pastor…

MCCAIN: Oh, I do. And I did. I said, any comments that he made
about the Catholic church I strongly condemn, of course.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you solicited and accepted his endorsement?

MCCAIN: Yes, indeed. I did.And I condemned the comments that
he made concerning the Catholic church.
Notice he doesn't say he condemns his bigotted remarks against homosexuals?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his
endorsement?

MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. But I admire and respect Dr.
Hagee’s leadership of the — of his church. I admire and appreciate
his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of
Israel.

I condemn remarks that are made that has anything to do which is
condemning of the Catholic church, but — so…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: … no longer want his endorsement?

MCCAIN: I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks
that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. But thanks for asking.
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-mccain-on-abcs-this-week/
APRIL 20, 2008

And actually Sam, McCain compares Farrakan with Falwell:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

remember Falwell said in reference to 9/11:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

And McCain then:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/15blog-mccain-falwell.jpg

WOO! WOO! All aboard the double talk express!

But hey let's not let the agenda be weighed down by facts there, Sam.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, not really, since Obama did not seek Farrakhan's endorsement and rejected and denounced it.

McCain went to Hagee, asked for his endorsement, and has publicly said he's happy to have it.
Oh hush.

Stop using facts to prove your case!




:cool:

[Sabrinaset]

What exactly are these anti-Catholic things Hagee said? So far, all I know about is he blamed Hitler on the Pope, or something like that, which was like so far factually wrong it wasn't funny, but no one has actually posted any quotes unless I missed a link. Because there's a difference between being anti-Catholic per se, and being anti-Catholic based on their ... well, let's say pretty spotty history and leave it at that. Does he hate Catholicism because of what they are, or because of what they've done? Heck, I didn't even know who this guy was until a month or so ago when he was mentioned in the Wright thread and I had to look him up. Or maybe my brain is fried.

[Alex Scott]

I believe he also says that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon described in Revelation.

There's also the fact that his support for Israel is based more on their alleged role in "prophecy" (which also involves the Jews being betrayed, murdered, and persecuted by the Antichrist, with the survivors converting to Christianity) than for any respect for the Jewish people. Really, the guy's just a little too excited about World War III.

But it's not like Hagee's the only crazy bigot endorsing McCain. There's also anti-Muslim bigot Rod Parsley.

[Sabrinaset]

I believe he also says that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon described in Revelation.

There's also the fact that his support for Israel is based more on their alleged role in "prophecy" (which also involves the Jews being betrayed, murdered, and persecuted by the Antichrist, with the survivors converting to Christianity) than for any respect for the Jewish people. Really, the guy's just a little too excited about World War III.

So he hates the church itself more than the Catholics in it... or the church as it will become after the Rapture, or ...? The Catholic Church as a whole has a pretty bad record when it comes to human rights and suchlike. I mean, just think of them as the Republican Party, but who really do think God is on their side and having existed a lot longer.

That was the thing I looked up awhile back, someone accused him of being anti-semetic, and if anything, he seemed pretty PRO-semetic to me. In fact, he's donated money to Jewish hospitals but stopped when they started performing abortions, IIRC. He's been feted by a bunch of Jewish groups, and I kinda doubt they'd all have been fooled if he was really anti-Jewish. The thing that struck me is his saying "Anyone who makes the life of Jewish people difficult or grievous, as did the Pharaoh, as did Hitler, will be cursed by God." He seems more the type who follows the philosophy of "Whoever blesses the Jews will be blessed, and whoever curses them, sucks to be you" ... although yeah, he does seem pretty heavy on Revelations.

[beetlebum]

Anti Catholic statements by Hagee:

http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/john_hagee_and_the_apocalypse

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-07-mccain-hagee_N.htm?csp=34

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-hagee-is-anti-catholic.html

They were actually not that hard to find.

And thanks Kev, you're welcome rick (though you didn't wish me a happy birthday :mad: :tongue: ) and I've had my fill of sensayuma for the week. :wink:

And we must remember that people have done a lot of good on behalf of the church as well. Please do not paint a certain subset of individuals with a broad brush.

[rick]

....you're welcome rick (though you didn't wish me a happy birthday :mad: :tongue: )

I can't believe that I missed it.

Have a happy, although belated birthday. :smile:

[beetlebum]

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/graphics/6/20071204091255_2.gif

[kingdom2000]

I can't say I am surprised. John "More bush done better" McCain has made it clear he will happily sell his soul to the devil for a win. After the man flopped on torture (probably because it worked on him) its pretty clear that there literally isn't anything he isn't willing to do or say to win. So basically he is the perfect Republican candidate.

[Royal]

No, you didn't. You changed 2 words (switched McCain and Obama where each is mentioned), and most importantly, you omitted the list of real examples that I cited because McCain doesn't have such a list. I made my point by citing the actual people, which you failed to do.

You didn't get what I did.

[ShaunN]

Dear Samurai,

I have to agree with Crowley's point here. It is not at all clear that Wright is "racist", yet you keep insisting that he is. He has pointed out, rather vociferously, the racist structures of the American political system. But these are real and they are created by and for white people. So, how could he point these things out without noting this other uncomfortable fact?

I would need to see a lot more evidence that Wright is racist before I condemn him as such. On the other hand, Hagee seems pretty clearly anti-Catholic, anti-homosexual (which, admittedly, does not make him out of line with many religious people of several faiths) and, if his "Katrina" comments are parsed more carefully, somewhat anti-black.

Re: what Hagee has said about Catholics - the quote I heard seemed to be him saying that Hitler had not done anything that the Catholic Church did not do. Given the Church's rather long and often horrendous history, this is, possibly, a defensible comment. On the other hand, it is not entirely fair and it certainly does not reflect much respect for observant Catholics. And, given Hagee's apparent enthusiasm for the Apocalypse, also doesn't seem that dissimilar from what he, himself, is advocating.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Crowley]

Okay I'm now declaring McCain a total racist now. Why?

Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a "slave sale" to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, "The Cluster."

The item was introduced with the sentence "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."

A July 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal article about Hagee noted the incident:

To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a "slave" sale. "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," it said. "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be "politically correct" and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a "canine American."

McCain:
I admire and respect Dr.
Hagee’s leadership of the — of his church.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f312/Tonito44/ThatsRacist.gif

[Crowley]

Oh here's another INSANE John McCain supporter, Rod Parsley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw8-9AGGsQw

COO! COO!

[Briareos]

Can't we all agree that Michael Wilson would be the best president?

[Samurai]

Dear Samurai,

I have to agree with Crowley's point here. It is not at all clear that Wright is "racist", yet you keep insisting that he is. He has pointed out, rather vociferously, the racist structures of the American political system. But these are real and they are created by and for white people. So, how could he point these things out without noting this other uncomfortable fact?

I would need to see a lot more evidence that Wright is racist before I condemn him as such. On the other hand, Hagee seems pretty clearly anti-Catholic, anti-homosexual (which, admittedly, does not make him out of line with many religious people of several faiths) and, if his "Katrina" comments are parsed more carefully, somewhat anti-black.

Re: what Hagee has said about Catholics - the quote I heard seemed to be him saying that Hitler had not done anything that the Catholic Church did not do. Given the Church's rather long and often horrendous history, this is, possibly, a defensible comment. On the other hand, it is not entirely fair and it certainly does not reflect much respect for observant Catholics. And, given Hagee's apparent enthusiasm for the Apocalypse, also doesn't seem that dissimilar from what he, himself, is advocating.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Shaun, Rev Wright is very clearly a racist. From claiming that whites created AIDs and import drugs to commit genocide against blacks to calling America the "US of KKK A" to his calls for black separatism and black superiority to saying racist and terrorist America deserved 9/11, there's no question about it. He is a bigot, a racist, and pure scum.

[Crowley]

Can't we all agree that Michael Wilson would be the best president?
You mean the Canadian who tried to undermine Obama?
Yeah no... thanks for playing.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” (magazine article)

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” (sermon)

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (sermon)

“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

What's racist here Sam?

[Pauly T]

Shaun, Rev Wright is very clearly a racist. From claiming that whites created AIDs and import drugs to commit genocide against blacks to calling America the "US of KKK A" to his calls for black separatism and black superiority to saying racist and terrorist America deserved 9/11, there's no question about it. He is a bigot, a racist, and pure scum.

Wow, 60 or so years of life, about 30 years of Christian ministry, and you found out everything Jeremiah Wright ever said, did, or thought in 30 seconds of grainy footage on youtube.

Isn't technology grand?

[Crowley]

Can't we all agree that Michael Wilson would be the best president?
You mean the Canadian who tried to undermine Obama?
Yeah no... thanks for playing.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” (magazine article)

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” (sermon)

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (sermon)

“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

What's racist here Sam?

[Royal]

Shaun is very clearly a racist. From claiming that whites created AIDs and import drugs to commit genocide against blacks to calling America the "US of KKK A" to his calls for black separatism and black superiority to saying racist and terrorist America deserved 9/11, there's no question about it. He is a bigot, a racist, and pure scum.

Now that's not nice Samurai. Apologize to Shawn.

Totally not cool.

[Tages]

Shaun, Rev Wright is very clearly a racist. From claiming that whites created AIDs

So does he attribute this to "whites" or to the US gov't? Because if it's the latter, that's not racist.

and import drugs to commit genocide against blacks
Not racist.

to calling America the "US of KKK A"
In what universe is using the term "KKK" as a pejorative racist? Are you insane?

to his calls for black separatism and black superiority
Citations.

to saying racist and terrorist America deserved 9/11,
Not racist.

there's no question about it. He is a bigot, a racist, and pure scum.
Wow. It's a good thing that, as you so tactfully put it, Obama favors Muslims, then, huh?

[Samurai]

So does he attribute this to "whites" or to the US gov't? Because if it's the latter, that's not racist.


Not racist.


In what universe is using the term "KKK" as a pejorative racist? Are you insane?


Citations.


Not racist.


Wow. It's a good thing that, as you so tactfully put it, Obama favors Muslims, then, huh?
Yes, it is all racist. It is racist to accuse white people (or even just the whites in the "US of KKK A's" government) of creating AIDs to wipe out black people. Or that they are importing drugs and targeting blacks with them for the same reason. It's a crazy fantasy with no basis in reality. (And that is an attack on America, specifically white Americans, NOT an attack on the KKK) Same with all the rest of it.

You know, if you can't even recognize such blatant hatred and bigotry, I don't see what good explaining it all will do. You're not one of those loony people who believes minorities cannot be racist, no matter what, because they are an "oppressed class", are you? Can you really not see the hatred and bigotry against whites that pours from Wright's mouth? But then, I should have known you guys might have trouble spotting a racist, because many of you seem to mistakenly think I'm one... shows how much your KKK-dar is botched up (I created a new word!) :evilsmile:

[Spike-X]

Samurai, when have you ever - EVER! - posted anything denouncing attacks against any minority group? The only 'attacks', real or imagined, you ever - EVER! - post about are those against the 800lb gorilla of white, heterosexual, Christian conservatism.

You may not be actively racist, or bigoted, or any of those other slurs you like to throw out against anyone who dares to attack your precious 800lb gorilla, but you're willing to tie yourself in knots defending anyone who is, as long as it's only minorities they're attacking.

[Crowley]

Yes, it is all racist. It is racist to accuse white people (or even just the whites in the "US of KKK A's" government) of creating AIDs to wipe out black people. Or that they are importing drugs and targeting blacks with them for the same reason. It's a crazy fantasy with no basis in reality. (And that is an attack on America, specifically white Americans, NOT an attack on the KKK) Same with all the rest of it.

Yeah thank god that no ever imported or exported AIDS...

oh wait:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lcFDOWIl7Nw&hl=en

[Samurai]

Samurai, when have you ever - EVER! - posted anything denouncing attacks against any minority group? The only 'attacks', real or imagined, you ever - EVER! - post about are those against the 800lb gorilla of white, heterosexual, Christian conservatism.

You may not be actively racist, or bigoted, or any of those other slurs you like to throw out against anyone who dares to attack your precious 800lb gorilla, but you're willing to tie yourself in knots defending anyone who is, as long as it's only minorities they're attacking.

Several times, most often Jews and Asians, though others as well.

And I'm not Christian, and I have disagreed with the Christian stances on numerous issues, though I don't insult them for their beliefs when I do.

But if I am most often defending "white, heterosexual, Christian conservatism", did you ever stop to think for a moment that 95% of all attacks, insults, and slurs against an identifiable group on these boards are against "white, heterosexual, Christian conservatism"? Maybe that's why it seems like I'm always defending against it? Second most common is probably Israel and Judaism, but that's waaaay behind. If we were seeing constant daily attacks, insults, and slurs against other minorities, maybe I'd have something to defend against there? Call me crazy, but I don't feel that "white, heterosexual, Christian conservatism" is the 1 group it's ok to insult, as apparently many others do, so I call it for what it is, even if I'm an agnostic.

[Samurai]

Yeah thank god that no ever imported or exported AIDS...

oh wait:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lcFDOWIl7Nw&hl=en

Wow, was that ever a 1-sided story! I'd never heard of that before, and I have a feeling there's much more to the story than 1 sensationalist lawyer who is promoting his case. But even if that is somehow true, how does that prove the US govt created AIDs to kill blacks? If anything, it hit gays the hardest, but Wright doesn't mention them at all...

[Loren]

Now that's not nice Samurai. Apologize to Shawn.

Totally not cool.

Wait...what? Are you trying to make some sort of bad joke here? I don't really agree with Sam, but he certainly has nothing to apologize to Shaun for. Here's the first sentence of Samurai's actual post (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6757165&postcount=81):

"Shaun, Rev Wright is very clearly a racist."

And here's what you "quote" (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6757287&postcount=85) Samurai as saying:

"Shaun is very clearly a racist."

Nobody else's quote function seems to have made this change to Samurai's post. So why did the subject of Samurai's sentence suddenly change from Wright to Shaun when YOU quoted him?

[KevinTBrown]

Here's the definition of "racist":

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That's clearly NOT Rev. Wright.

Here's the definition of "prejudice":

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Rev. Wright is NOT a racist... He is, however, prejudiced. There's a HUGE difference between the two. Until people who are bitterly complaining about him get it right (yeah, looking at you Sam), they're arguments are hollow and are without merit.

Hagee, on the other hand, IS racist. He feels and says that his race and religion is superior to all others.

[Paradox]

Loren didn't see?:

Wait...what? Are you trying to make some sort of bad joke here?

Presumably, and not the first time in this thread.

[the4thpip]

Um, isn't this very thread evidence that there *is* a similar outcry about Hagee?

Of course not. And you've shown yourself in the past to be way too intelligent to make a silly statement like that, so what is up with that?

[Ninja Kris]

Here's the definition of "racist":

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That's clearly NOT Rev. Wright.

Here's the definition of "prejudice":

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Rev. Wright is NOT a racist... He is, however, prejudiced. There's a HUGE difference between the two. Until people who are bitterly complaining about him get it right (yeah, looking at you Sam), they're arguments are hollow and are without merit.

Hagee, on the other hand, IS racist. He feels and says that his race and religion is superior to all others.


Really. Don't have any use for a homophobe. But highlight the Hagee quote where he says whites are a superior race. Must have missed it. Unless we have determined that gays and catholics are a race.

[beetlebum]

I just want to say that, after corresponding with Shaun on this forum, as well as via pm, and even e-mail, he is very clearly not a racist.

EDIT: I wasn't sure what the intent of his utterance was. I just wanted to clarify things.

[Paradox]

**struggles not to laugh**

Royal made a bad joke aimed at Sam. Don't take it too seriously.

[beetlebum]

I wasn't sure what the intent of his utterance was, and I just wanted to clarify certain things. That's all.

[ShaunN]

Dear Samurai (and everyone else),

I'm not quite sure why Samurai's earlier post was altered to make it seem he was saying I was a racist. I assume this is a joke that I don't get - perhaps a reference to the earlier post on how easy it was to alter the meaning of a post by changing a few words?

Samurai, I concur with Kevin's point about the difference between racism and prejudice. It is possible that Wright is prejudiced against whites, but he is certainly not racist. And Crowley's full quotations from Wright illustrate this very well. There is little that Wright has said that is demonstrably incorrect and much that is clearly correct. Unfortunately, in the US today, saying and doing anything that questions the "patriotic" party line is subject to condemnation.

Where I certainly question Wright is in his assertion of AIDS being imported to by the US government to destroy the black community. He is certainly wrong about this, in my opinion. Yet, it is also necessary to understand where he is coming from. Many African Americans are deeply distrustful of the government and medical establishment for perfectly legtimate reasons. The Tuskegee experiments stand as the sterling example of this, where (I think) about 400 black men were allowed to suffer through syphilis to the point of death so the medical establishment could study the effects of the disease. This is just a fact: in the recent past, the black community was subject to experimentation by the established authorities. Given that reality, it is not so difficult to understand why many people in that community believe it could happen again. This does not mean that they are correct, but the context must be taken into account. Similarly, it is also a fact that the CIA helped Nicaraguan contras and other criminal groups sell drugs in the US in order to raise money for their illicit activities. Again, once this comes out, it is not difficult to see why many people believe that this could happen again.

I return to a point I made earlier and which, I think, you have not really addressed: what is wrong with a black man getting up and condemning the racist structures that have been a consistent part of US foreign and domestic policy? And if he does condemn those things, wouldn't he sound a lot like Rev. Wright? After all, race - or more accurately, religion and ethnicity - clearly do play huge roles in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East (both in Iraq and Palestine) and in Latin America and elsewhere. And let's not forget that African Americans in the US only gained the right to vote, in reality, back in the 1960s. And, as we've seen from things like the 2000 Florida vote, even that is not guaranteed. So, I pose that question: if we can agree that the US (like many countries) has practiced race-based foreign and domestic policies, then what is wrong with condemning those policies?

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Samurai]

Here's the definition of "racist":

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That's clearly NOT Rev. Wright.

Here's the definition of "prejudice":

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Rev. Wright is NOT a racist... He is, however, prejudiced. There's a HUGE difference between the two. Until people who are bitterly complaining about him get it right (yeah, looking at you Sam), they're arguments are hollow and are without merit.

Hagee, on the other hand, IS racist. He feels and says that his race and religion is superior to all others.
How do #1 and 3 definition of racism NOT apply to Wright? He clearly feels that blacks are superior, and white Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant," who have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", "believe in white supremacy", and have, "supported Zionism shamelessly." Are you saying that if a white guy got up and said "Black Americans are X, Y, and Z (fill in black stereotypes of your choice)", who have committed this and that offense, and that's why whites need to follow a separate white moral code and support white culture, you'd defend him as not being racist at all, merely a bit prejudiced? Come off it, I don't buy that for a second!

[Samurai]

Dear Samurai (and everyone else),

I'm not quite sure why Samurai's earlier post was altered to make it seem he was saying I was a racist. I assume this is a joke that I don't get - perhaps a reference to the earlier post on how easy it was to alter the meaning of a post by changing a few words?

Samurai, I concur with Kevin's point about the difference between racism and prejudice. It is possible that Wright is prejudiced against whites, but he is certainly not racist. And Crowley's full quotations from Wright illustrate this very well. There is little that Wright has said that is demonstrably incorrect and much that is clearly correct. Unfortunately, in the US today, saying and doing anything that questions the "patriotic" party line is subject to condemnation.

Where I certainly question Wright is in his assertion of AIDS being imported to by the US government to destroy the black community. He is certainly wrong about this, in my opinion. Yet, it is also necessary to understand where he is coming from. Many African Americans are deeply distrustful of the government and medical establishment for perfectly legtimate reasons. The Tuskegee experiments stand as the sterling example of this, where (I think) about 400 black men were allowed to suffer through syphilis to the point of death so the medical establishment could study the effects of the disease. This is just a fact: in the recent past, the black community was subject to experimentation by the established authorities. Given that reality, it is not so difficult to understand why many people in that community believe it could happen again. This does not mean that they are correct, but the context must be taken into account. Similarly, it is also a fact that the CIA helped Nicaraguan contras and other criminal groups sell drugs in the US in order to raise money for their illicit activities. Again, once this comes out, it is not difficult to see why many people believe that this could happen again.

I return to a point I made earlier and which, I think, you have not really addressed: what is wrong with a black man getting up and condemning the racist structures that have been a consistent part of US foreign and domestic policy? And if he does condemn those things, wouldn't he sound a lot like Rev. Wright? After all, race - or more accurately, religion and ethnicity - clearly do play huge roles in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East (both in Iraq and Palestine) and in Latin America and elsewhere. And let's not forget that African Americans in the US only gained the right to vote, in reality, back in the 1960s. And, as we've seen from things like the 2000 Florida vote, even that is not guaranteed. So, I pose that question: if we can agree that the US (like many countries) has practiced race-based foreign and domestic policies, then what is wrong with condemning those policies?

Sincerely,

Shaun

It hasn't been Royal in the past (never heard of him, is that a name change for someone familiar?), but it's a game some of these guys like to play, altering my words to make me sound bad and try to get me banned, or at least dismissed. Been doing it a while now, I usually try to ignore that kind of childish BS.

As for your latter point, first, I disagree that the US has had a strongly racist foreign policy. We have supported some people and tried to take down others, and neither were always wise choices, but the race of the people helped or attacked has never really been an issue. We gave a ton of support to help the Pakistani earthquake victims and tsunami victims in Indonesia. We have been allied with people from every race, creed, and culture around the world. The Russians (white people) were our main fear and foe for decades in the cold war. We fought the Nazis (and Germany in WW1 as well), and there is no bigger fan of the white race and white power than the Nazis... if we were so racist, why not ally with them?

So, America's foreign policy is not racist, let's look at domestic. In the past, there had been some racist policies. Today, though, the institutionalized, government codified racism is against white males, called Affirmative Action. There is still some individual racism here and there against other people, but the only race facing govt-authorized discrimination is white males, and it has been so for longer than I've been alive.

So maybe Wright needs to wake up, take a look at the real world around him rather than his diatribes on slavery generations ago or his fantasies about whites everywhere trying to commit genocide against blacks, and try to preach some love, understanding, and healing between the races rather than preaching bigotry and hatred for things that happened either long ago or only in his mind. I don't believe in religion myself, but I think it can have some redeeming features... it can inspire people to do good, promote peace and love, and bond people together. Used for evil, though, it can inspire hatred, war, and animosity. Like the Islamists, Rev. Wright is clearly using it for the latter purpose, not the former.

[Briareos]

You mean the Canadian who tried to undermine Obama?
Yeah no... thanks for playing.

No I meant the one that saved us all from the Coup attempt in his Giant Robot!

http://www.vimeo.com/471603

[Crowley]

Wow, was that ever a 1-sided story! I'd never heard of that before, and I have a feeling there's much more to the story than 1 sensationalist lawyer who is promoting his case. But even if that is somehow true, how does that prove the US govt created AIDs to kill blacks? If anything, it hit gays the hardest, but Wright doesn't mention them at all...
"Somehow True?"
Bayer admitted to it and it's been well documented since the 1980's. The US government did NOTHING to punish Bayer or stop the spread of the disease, or have the CDC take the necessary steps to alert the public of the facts.

Ever heard of the book or the movie "And the Band played on" ?


As for your latter point, first, I disagree that the US has had a strongly racist foreign policy. We have supported some people and tried to take down others, and neither were always wise choices, but the race of the people helped or attacked has never really been an issue. We gave a ton of support to help the Pakistani earthquake victims and tsunami victims in Indonesia. We have been allied with people from every race, creed, and culture around the world. The Russians (white people) were our main fear and foe for decades in the cold war. We fought the Nazis (and Germany in WW1 as well), and there is no bigger fan of the white race and white power than the Nazis... if we were so racist, why not ally with them?

Are we purposefully ignoring every conflict after WW2?
Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo...

not alot of white people on this list.

So, America's foreign policy is not racist, let's look at domestic. In the past, there had been some racist policies. Today, though, the institutionalized, government codified racism is against white males, called Affirmative Action. There is still some individual racism here and there against other people, but the only race facing govt-authorized discrimination is white males, and it has been so for longer than I've been alive.

Have you looked at the prison statistics? How about immigration policy? How about gentrification? Redistricting? How about education?
If you dig, you'll find alot of the mechanics of instuitionalized racism are still in play.
Or if you watch John McCain only now realize that MLK deserved a holiday.


So maybe Wright needs to wake up, take a look at the real world around him rather than his diatribes on slavery generations ago or his fantasies about whites everywhere trying to commit genocide against blacks, and try to preach some love, understanding, and healing between the races rather than preaching bigotry and hatred for things that happened either long ago or only in his mind. I don't believe in religion myself, but I think it can have some redeeming features... it can inspire people to do good, promote peace and love, and bond people together. Used for evil, though, it can inspire hatred, war, and animosity. Like the Islamists, Rev. Wright is clearly using it for the latter purpose, not the former.
I think drawing that comparison with Wright shows your ignorance of his preachings. Furthermore, Islamic Extremists at a fundamental level share more in common with Hagee then with Wright.

[Samurai]

"Somehow True?"
Bayer admitted to it and it's been well documented since the 1980's. The US government did NOTHING to punish Bayer or stop the spread of the disease, or have the CDC take the necessary steps to alert the public of the facts.

Ever heard of the book or the movie "And the Band played on" ?



Are we purposefully ignoring every conflict after WW2?
Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo...

not alot of white people on this list.

...in which we were helping/defending the South Koreans, the South Vietnamese, the Somalis, the Bosnian Muslims being attacked by the white, Christian Serbs... you're making my point for me.


Have you looked at the prison statistics? How about immigration policy? How about gentrification? Redistricting? How about education?
If you dig, you'll find alot of the mechanics of instuitionalized racism are still in play.
Or if you watch John McCain only now realize that MLK deserved a holiday.

Blacks commit far more crimes, so they fill more of the prisons. No surprise there. Immigration policy is a joke, considering the millions and millions of hispanics flooding across the border with impunity. If "keeping America white" were any kind of a priority, they might have raised a finger to stop that long ago. Redistricting is for political purposes, not racial ones, and the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat is the only reason there's any correlation. Education funding is a state and local issue, as it should be, and that means local taxes help pay for local schools. Race doesn't enter into that. Poor people, in a poor neighborhood, no matter their race (and there are more poor whites than blacks), will often have poorer schools, except when some philanthropist decides to build some high-tech wonder-school for poor kids, as has happened several times. None of those are evidence of "institutionalized racism".

And I'm sorry to hear that McCain backed down on MLK day. I still feel that he alone doesn't deserve a holiday. Maybe a more generic "Internationalization Day" or something like that, to promote understanding and appreciation of different races and cultures would be good, but not an MLK Day.

I think drawing that comparison with Wright shows your ignorance of his preachings. Furthermore, Islamic Extremists at a fundamental level share more in common with Hagee then with Wright.

Really? Show me the Islamists saying that Israel should not be attacked, that those who screw with Israel are servants of the anti-Christ. I'd like to see that.

[Jack Zodiac]

Blacks commit far more crimes, so they fill more of the prisons.

Why? Blacks make up only 13% of the population of the United States, but almost 50% of the prison population. That's a statistical anomaly.

No surprise there.

Then explain it, in the least racist way possible, please.

And I'm sorry to hear that McCain backed down on MLK day. I still feel that he alone doesn't deserve a holiday. Maybe a more generic "Internationalization Day" or something like that, to promote understanding and appreciation of different races and cultures would be good, but not an MLK Day.

We should also ditch Presidents Day and Columbus Day.

[Sally Sensational]

We should also ditch Presidents Day and Columbus Day.

Hey! As a public school teacher, I take umbrage at the very idea. I NEED my days off!
(that was a joke, by the way)

MLK day isn't just about what the man accomplished; it's also about his continuing influence. I, for one, breathe a sigh of relief whenever anyone who feels the need to protest something decides to use his methods rather than more violent ones. And, yes, I recognize that MLK wasn't the first person to advocate non-violent means to advance social change. But he WAS the person who articulated those ideals so clearly to the American people that his words are still remembered and quoted - often by people who weren't even alive when he said them.

I do sometimes wish, though, that we hadn't lost the two separate days of remembrance for Washington and Lincoln, as their accomplishments were so different and deserve more attention than just one generic Presidents' Day.

[the4thpip]

One reason there are more blacks in prison than whites in the US is that the government made a law where the punishment for possessing the predominately white people drug cocaine is a lot less severe than the punishment for crack, which is more "popular" among blacks - even though it's the same damn chemical substance.

[Spike-X]

One reason there are more blacks in prison than whites in the US is that the government made a law where the punishment for possessing the predominately white people drug cocaine is a lot less severe than the punishment for crack, which is more "popular" among blacks - even though it's the same damn chemical substance.
Now now, Pip. Pointing that out is racist.

Apparently.

[the4thpip]

Now now, Pip. Pointing that out is racist.

Apparently.

But I like some white people. Even went to a Springsteen concert last December!

[Crowley]

...in which we were helping/defending the South Koreans, the South Vietnamese, the Somalis, the Bosnian Muslims being attacked by the white, Christian Serbs... you're making my point for me.
Not really... you were saying we only were at war with whites, that's not been true ever historically. I do think that elements of American Foreign policy have been racist, I can agree that for the most part our interests were a greater deciding factor over the color of the enemy's skin.


Blacks commit far more crimes, so they fill more of the prisons. No surprise there.
Wow... you know this is bullshit right?
So let's try it this way "Black people get arrested for more crimes, so they fill more prisons."

Immigration policy is a joke, considering the millions and millions of hispanics flooding across the border with impunity. If "keeping America white" were any kind of a priority, they might have raised a finger to stop that long ago. Redistricting is for political purposes, not racial ones, and the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat is the only reason there's any correlation. Education funding is a state and local issue, as it should be, and that means local taxes help pay for local schools. Race doesn't enter into that. Poor people, in a poor neighborhood, no matter their race (and there are more poor whites than blacks), will often have poorer schools, except when some philanthropist decides to build some high-tech wonder-school for poor kids, as has happened several times. None of those are evidence of "institutionalized racism".

And I'm sorry to hear that McCain backed down on MLK day. I still feel that he alone doesn't deserve a holiday. Maybe a more generic "Internationalization Day" or something like that, to promote understanding and appreciation of different races and cultures would be good, but not an MLK Day.

I really think you're out of touch.

Really? Show me the Islamists saying that Israel should not be attacked, that those who screw with Israel are servants of the anti-Christ. I'd like to see that.
If you're attempting a literal correlation of the contents of what they've actually said then you'll be disappointed... but again Sam, if you dig deeper, the subtext is all the same. The same extremists ideologies. Both sides of those extremists hate equality amongst race, gender and sexual orientation, they oppose free speech and progressivism.

So they're pretty much have the same ideas of where they want to be, just differing ways of how to get there, coupled with an intolerance for each other... which will likely lead to mutually assured destruction.

[Paul McEnery]

How do #1 and 3 definition of racism NOT apply to Wright? He clearly feels that blacks are superior, and white Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant," who have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", "believe in white supremacy", and have, "supported Zionism shamelessly." Are you saying that if a white guy got up and said "Black Americans are X, Y, and Z (fill in black stereotypes of your choice)", who have committed this and that offense, and that's why whites need to follow a separate white moral code and support white culture, you'd defend him as not being racist at all, merely a bit prejudiced? Come off it, I don't buy that for a second!

See, if you weren't a racist and a white supremacist, you'd understand that Wright's statements are accurate.

Also, you wouldn't project black supremacism onto him.






Which leads to another interesting question: how is it that white supremacism survives when its adherents are such a powerful counterexample?

[RachelEvil]

It hasn't been Royal in the past (never heard of him, is that a name change for someone familiar?), but it's a game some of these guys like to play, altering my words to make me sound bad and try to get me banned, or at least dismissed. Been doing it a while now, I usually try to ignore that kind of childish BS.


Now, now, Sam, you don't need anybody's help in sounding bad.

Long time no see, by the way. Hardly long enough.

I see you're still the only one brave enough to defend those with all the power and money. Good for you, sparky. Rage against the... uhm... What's the opposite of a machine?

Anyway, you obviously haven't changed an iota in the years since you were banned from that other site, so I really see no point in bothering to argue with your ignorant, half-assed opinions and your coy deliberate misinterpretations of other people's arguments. I guess that's my point, then, that there's no point in arguing with a douche like yourself.

[RachelEvil]

Which leads to another interesting question: how is it that white supremacism survives when its adherents are such a powerful counterexample?

The universe always provides morons.

[stealthwise]

I like to celebrate Columbus Day by selling Che Guevara shirts and telling children about the Pilgrims and Natives sharing the first Thanksgiving dinner.

[rick]

"Somehow True?"
Bayer admitted to it and it's been well documented since the 1980's. The US government did NOTHING to punish Bayer or stop the spread of the disease, or have the CDC take the necessary steps to alert the public of the facts.

Ever heard of the book or the movie "And the Band played on" ?


Crowley, that is a complete bullshit statement and I really expect better from you.

AIDS first showed up in Africa in the later 1950’s among the primate population and slowly spread to other species with the first cases of humans catching it going as far back as the late 1960’s. The first Westerner known to have died of the disease was Garthe Raske, a woman doctor who treated the sick in western Africa during the 1970’s and she died in I believe 1975.

Bayer certainly never “admitted” to creating AIDS and neither has any other lab or government. And while plenty of governments did indeed do very little to stop the spread of the disease during the 1980’s it had nothing to do with an attempt to protect a pharmaceutical company.

Finally, I have read And the Band Played On probably six or seven times now, being a huge fan of the writer Randy Shiltes, and I can promise you that there is nothing in that book backing up the claim that Bayer or any other pharmaceutical company created AIDS.

[Samurai]

Now, now, Sam, you don't need anybody's help in sounding bad.

Long time no see, by the way. Hardly long enough.

I see you're still the only one brave enough to defend those with all the power and money. Good for you, sparky. Rage against the... uhm... What's the opposite of a machine?

Anyway, you obviously haven't changed an iota in the years since you were banned from that other site, so I really see no point in bothering to argue with your ignorant, half-assed opinions and your coy deliberate misinterpretations of other people's arguments. I guess that's my point, then, that there's no point in arguing with a douche like yourself.

You seem to know me from RPG.net... what was your name over there? I like to know who I'm talking to.

"The ones with all the power and money"? Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of poor whites in America, myself included. And there are plenty of minorities with a lot of money and power.

[rick]

Why? Blacks make up only 13% of the population of the United States, but almost 50% of the prison population. That's a statistical anomaly.



Why is not an easy answer is it?

The reality though is that based on their numbers in the population, a larger proportion of blacks do get arrested and imprisoned.

Are you really going to hold Sam responsible for that reality?

[Jack Zodiac]

Why is not an easy answer is it?

The reality though is that based on their numbers in the population, a larger proportion of blacks do get arrested and imprisoned.

Are you really going to hold Sam responsible for that reality?

No, but I'd like his opinion since it seems so reasonable to him.

[rick]

One reason there are more blacks in prison than whites in the US is that the government made a law where the punishment for possessing the predominately white people drug cocaine is a lot less severe than the punishment for crack, which is more "popular" among blacks - even though it's the same damn chemical substance.

That was true 20 years ago during the crack epidemic, but what about the decades before then or the decades since?

Sure there are social and economic factors involved and certainly the government is more likely to throw the book at a black over a white, but it is not the entire answer.

[rick]

No, but I'd like his opinion since it seems so reasonable to him.


Okay, that's certainly fair.

And to be clear I am not defending Sam's position, since it is really just his typical rant.

Just a few of the responses seemed a bit off to me, that's all.

[RachelEvil]

You seem to know me from RPG.net... what was your name over there? I like to know who I'm talking to.

"The ones with all the power and money"? Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of poor whites in America, myself included. And there are plenty of minorities with a lot of money and power.

I'm RachelEvil over there, too.

Okay, so "all" is obviously an exageration, but you do get my point, yes? Well, maybe not. Anyway, I've already mentioned my opinion vis a vis the pointlessness of this exchange.

[Samurai]

Not really... you were saying we only were at war with whites, that's not been true ever historically. I do think that elements of American Foreign policy have been racist, I can agree that for the most part our interests were a greater deciding factor over the color of the enemy's skin.
No, I didn't say we were only at war with whites... let's scroll up, shall we?

We have supported some people and tried to take down others, and neither were always wise choices, but the race of the people helped or attacked has never really been an issue.

How did you get "whites only" from that? Race doesn't play much, if any, part in deciding who we help or oppose.


Wow... you know this is bullshit right?
So let's try it this way "Black people get arrested for more crimes, so they fill more prisons."
Blacks commit more crimes is BS in your view? Here are the homicide statistics from the FBI. In 2005, 3.5 out of every 100,000 whites committed homicide, a total of 8,350 nmurders. Blacks committed homicide at a rate of 26.5 per 100,000, a total of 10,285 murders, more than 7.5x the rate of whites. If you are going to say that that's BS, then you must have proof that more than 87% of all blacks in jail for murder were not only falsely arrested, but that a white person actually committed the crime. Shouldn't you come forward with all that evidence...?


If you're attempting a literal correlation of the contents of what they've actually said then you'll be disappointed... but again Sam, if you dig deeper, the subtext is all the same. The same extremists ideologies. Both sides of those extremists hate equality amongst race, gender and sexual orientation, they oppose free speech and progressivism.

So they're pretty much have the same ideas of where they want to be, just differing ways of how to get there, coupled with an intolerance for each other... which will likely lead to mutually assured destruction.
"Oppose progressivism"? So, if one opposes leftist solutions to problems, they are just like Islamists? And considering the cozy relationship between Islamists and leftists (numerous articles about this, and Carter's friendly meetings with Hamas are only the latest example), shouldn't the left be a lot cozier and friendlier to Hagee too?

[Samurai]

Why is not an easy answer is it?

The reality though is that based on their numbers in the population, a larger proportion of blacks do get arrested and imprisoned.

Are you really going to hold Sam responsible for that reality?

No, but I'd like his opinion since it seems so reasonable to him.
Would you really like my opinion, or are you just looking for more ammo? "Look, Sam is talking about why he thinks blacks commit more crimes... proof that he must be racist!"

If you really want someone's opinion on a complicated and volatile topic like that, they need to feel like they can speak openly and frankly about it.

So, I'll just say this... there are numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, a lack of cohesive 2-parent black families, a culture that idolizes crime and stigmatizes learning, a higher poverty rate and a higher urban population, black leaders out to enrich themselves and either keep their people down or make them think they are so that they remain indispensable, an over-reliance on welfare hand-outs, and waiting for someone to lift them up rather than working hard for it themselves, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, and yes, some cases of racist cops or judges coming down harder on them than whites.

Exactly how much part does each of the above play, no one can know for sure. But the Asian immigrants to America, many of whom started as servants, mine and rail workers, clothes washers, prostitutes, and cooks, have a crime rate that is significantly lower than whites, and IMO, the main reasons for that are their typically strong family structures and a culture that reveres learning and hard work as the ways to get ahead in life. IMO, that is definitely one of the most important answers to the question.

Of course, all the above are generalizations, you know... you can't talk about statistics for an entire race of people without such generalizations. And individuals can and do break such generalizations every day, all across the country.

[Crowley]

Crowley, that is a complete bullshit statement and I really expect better from you.

AIDS first showed up in Africa in the later 1950’s among the primate population and slowly spread to other species with the first cases of humans catching it going as far back as the late 1960’s. The first Westerner known to have died of the disease was Garthe Raske, a woman doctor who treated the sick in western Africa during the 1970’s and she died in I believe 1975.

Bayer certainly never “admitted” to creating AIDS and neither has any other lab or government. And while plenty of governments did indeed do very little to stop the spread of the disease during the 1980’s it had nothing to do with an attempt to protect a pharmaceutical company.

Finally, I have read And the Band Played On probably six or seven times now, being a huge fan of the writer Randy Shiltes, and I can promise you that there is nothing in that book backing up the claim that Bayer or any other pharmaceutical company created AIDS.
Rick,
You have misread me. I didn't ever say ANYTHING about Bayer creating AIDS. I said they did nothing to stop the spread of the contaminated blood that was sent to Europe.

[Samurai]

Rick,
You have misread me. I didn't ever say ANYTHING about Bayer creating AIDS. I said they did nothing to stop the spread of the contaminated blood that was sent to Europe.

But you said it in support of the notion of the government creating AIDS to kill blacks...

[Paul McEnery]

That was true 20 years ago during the crack epidemic, but what about the decades before then or the decades since?

Sure there are social and economic factors involved and certainly the government is more likely to throw the book at a black over a white, but it is not the entire answer.

Um, no, that is pretty much the entire answer.

With the exception of the unnecessary criminalization of certain victimless crimes.