The preachers seem to be doing as much harm to the black community as the pimps and pushers. The hate and vitriol spewing forth from the pulpits is alarming. Compared to Wright and Manning, Sharpton almost seems rational. Incredible!
Barack Obama says that he wants to bring Americans together and get beyond the divisions of the past. So why does he continue to associate himself with those who seem to think it’s a trick question if you ask them whether the federal government created the AIDS virus?
Obama is no fool. He knows that this is insanity. So why will he not unequivocally repudiate the unscrupulous demagogues who sow racial division by suggesting that white Americans are trying to commit genocide against black Americans?
Let’s assume that Obama is a pragmatist and only joined the church because it gave him a connection to the black community in south Chicago. At this point, how does it serve his interests to remain a member of the church? Perhaps he’s afraid that leaving the church now would be seen (correctly) as a political ploy, and undermine his (largly successful) attempts to appear genuine. Also, if he leaves now, then his public justification for leaving would have to be along the lines of “I didn’t realize how radical they are”. But that just makes him look stupid. People don’t want a President --who bears the ultimate responsibility for defending his country-- to be ignorant of the philosophy of his own church (not to mention his own spiritual mentor). Such a President would likely be ignorant of what is going in his own administration, and couldn’t be trusted to make informed decisions about national security. Thus, having calculated that the political cost of leaving the church now is too steep, he is hoping to ride out the storm.
So the Revrund Racist Wright’s successor, the good Revrund Otis, can’t bring himself to concede that the Government did not create the AIDS virus to kill black pople. There’s another profile in courage, just like Oblama. Worse yet, he sounds young, so so much for Oblama’s rising generation theory of remedied race relations.
I guess that’s the new definition of an Uncle Tom: a person of color who believes the AIDS virus occurred naturally. Lordamercy, what fools these revrunds be!
There is a book about white southerners and George Wallace called The Politics of Rage. The same sort of politics is being practiced by these black ministers, in some cases out of pure cynicism, but the MSM is afraid to admit it. Why, even FOX invites the thuggish, slandering, riot inciting Al Sharpton on their shows as a pundit. It’s a disgrace. Enough is enough.
You all don’t get it. You don’t accept the fact they don’t take the bait.
Obama will not take the race baiting. In the clip, Reverend Moss doesn’t take the bait. They do not judge - they try to understand. The person that accuses the government of AIDS is angry. Do they have reason to be angry? Yes. Do they lash out at things too far away from rational thought? Yes, they are angry. You don’t tell that man he is being irrational. You tell him that he is being angry, you justify his feelings and himself, you try to find the source of his anger, you help him heal.
Is it right to satisfy their anger by really blaming AIDS on the government? No. Is it right to throw away the angry person? If no one loves them enough to help heal them, maybe it is best. Is it right to blame someone for not turning their back on another person? Not if they are helping them heal.
You all don’t get it. You don’t accept the fact they don’t take the bait.
Obama will not take the race baiting. In the clip, Reverend Moss doesn’t take the bait.
It is not race baiting to ask someone a factual question about the origin of the AIDS virus. As for Obama, as far as I know he would be happy to answer the question and affirm that AIDS is not man-made. So by your definition it would seem to follow that Obama is “taking the bait”? It makes my head hurt to try to make sense of you.
johnkyblue - 21 March 2008 04:38 AM
They do not judge - they try to understand.
Guess what? It’s possible to do both. When someone is a paranoid lunatic racist, I judge them as such. I also understand the reasons why they are a paranoid lunatic racist.
The rest of your post reads like a parody of bleeding heart liberalism, and it’s not relevant. What we do about “angry people” is a separate issue from whether one should give a straight answer to a question about AIDS.
The anti-white racist myth about the origin of AIDS increases anger and is an unmitigated bad thing. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for perpetuating that myth.
You all don’t get it. You don’t accept the fact they don’t take the bait.
Obama will not take the race baiting. In the clip, Reverend Moss doesn’t take the bait. They do not judge - they try to understand. The person that accuses the government of AIDS is angry. Do they have reason to be angry? Yes. Do they lash out at things too far away from rational thought? Yes, they are angry. You don’t tell that man he is being irrational. You tell him that he is being angry, you justify his feelings and himself, you try to find the source of his anger, you help him heal.
Is it right to satisfy their anger by really blaming AIDS on the government? No. Is it right to throw away the angry person? If no one loves them enough to help heal them, maybe it is best. Is it right to blame someone for not turning their back on another person? Not if they are helping them heal.
Wright is not some poor black person. He’s no doubt a wealthy man (obviously wears only the best is African robes), and Obama calls him a scholar (of anti-white black liberation theology). He can be told that he is wrong to say the government caused AIDS and told this directly. Obama can’t even bring himself to say which of Wright’s statements were “controversial.” What Wright said isn’t controversial, it’s acarefully calculated, pernicious lie, told by someone in a position of power and authority in thsi country. It’s scandalous that Obama said nothing to him about any of this for years and now only speaks about it in the vaguest, most defensive terms. It’s scandalous that the successor won’t say Wright was wrong. It’s scandalous that you think asking someone to show moral courage and take a stand for truth is asking them a “take a bait.”
Decades ago, George Wallace catered to the worst instincts of ignorant white crackers who had economic anxieties, race hustlers like Wright do the same thing today. They should have been roundly condemned then and they should be today as well, no matter their color. Wrong is wrong, whatever the color, and Wright is wrong.
Yes, Wright “dressed down” for the occasion, didn’t he.
I’m glad you posted that amazing picture. It suggests Wright himself knows that some of the stuff he says is crapola--performance art for the bumpkins. Remember all that stuff about Clinton “riding dirty” with Monica that we just heard. Well, there was Wright ten years ago “counseling” Clinton about Monica. He doesn’t exactly look upset with Bill there, does he? Hardly, he looks adoring (this was back when Bill was still the first black president). So I suspect his moral outrage at Bill today is rather feigned.
By the way, who is Wright’s wife, I mean Mrs. Racist? He is married, I take it?
You all don’t get it. You don’t accept the fact they don’t take the bait.
It’s not “taking the bait” to defend one’s irrational criticisms of the U.S. government by asking them to provide some sort of truthful foundation to their claims, like facts!
The woman in the clip asks Moss to defend his positions like “Did the U.S. government “invent” AIDs to decimate the black population?”
He refuses to give her an answer, much less a truthful answer.
All I know is that when AIDS hit, all the people I knew who died were white.
Homosexual, but white.
Obama will not take the race baiting. In the clip, Reverend Moss doesn’t take the bait.
“Taking the bait” here means giving a truthful answer.
If these black men are “angry,” it is for no reason other than to be angry.
They are addicted to their race anger and no amount of “caring” federal programs will change that.
There is another, more subtle, issue here. Let’s listen to Reverend Otis’s take on drugs for example. In his view the US is a bad place because we can put a telescope in space but we can’t stop drugs from getting to the “community”.
What Otis conveniently neglects to mention is the fact that drugs are in his community because people there want to buy them.
These reverend guys are trying to assure their congregation that the problems they face do NOT belong to them. They are “failures” because whitey wills it. NOT because they lack the basic principles necessary to succeed.
It is rank denial and I’m tired of it. I live on the western fringe of a failing city. The black people there are apparently incapable of confronting the mess that they themselves made. They elect incompetent morons to high public office simply because they are black. They have no family structure, no sense of right or wrong and no viable future.
that idiot from kentucky has never visited a ghetto it seems.
What you have neglected to mention is that the desire had to be cultivated in the first place.
Huh? That’s got to be the silliest thing I ever heard. Blame everyone else. Nice.
What you have neglected to mention is that the black people of those communities do not own the jets and the ships and the trucks that transport the drugs accross the border. You do!
You who? You don’t seem to have any concept of market mechanisms. The same drugs are available to everyone. Different communities have different tastes, though. It’s part of what defines different cultures and subcultures. You can push as much rap at me as you want, I still won’t develop the “desire” to listen to it, since I have different tastes in music.
Are blacks responsible for ANYTHING AT ALL? Anything?
These idiotic excuses are just getting so tired and stale.
“While the FDN’s war is barely a memory today, black America is still dealing with its poisonous side effects. Urban neighborhoods are grappling with legions of homeless crack addicts. Thousands of young black men are serving long prison sentences for selling cocaine—a drug that was virtually unobtainable in black neighborhoods before members of the CIA’s army started bringing it into South-Central in the 1980s at bargain-basement prices.”
You should apply at one of those Black Liberation Theology churches. You would fit in nicely.
If the US is so hostile to you, why are you still here? Are there no other countries that would be less hostile to you and your family? There are some 60+ “black” countries. What’s wrong with them?
I just don’t get it. I would never stay in such a country.
Oh! I guess the US programmed you to stay here. Sorry. I forgot that you don’t think for yourself but have all your wants and desires dictated to you.
FM LOS ANGELES (58A-1588) (RIVRA/WCC-2) (P)BLAH BLAH BLAH
What is this cr*p?!?
I can’t make head nor tails out of it, what with the formatting, the all caps and the “INFORMATION BLACKED OUT!”
vegastricon or veldon or whatever your name is, you are seriously ill.
Get help--today.
