Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: This is why I thought conservatives were incorrect to go after Jeremiah Wright 14

Journal by smitty_one_each
My good buddy, again:

Before paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6, and summarizing that he thought homosexuality "illogical", Robertson had offered this:

"We're Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television," he tells me. "You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and letâ(TM)s get on with it, and everything will turn around."

Yep, that sure sounds like a man with a ZZ Top beard revving up the lynch mod, all right.
However, given the anti-Christian fervor of our day, it's been way too easy for the Usual Suspects to foam at the mouth.
I recall the same thing done with Jeremiah Wright. Now, I'm not in agreement with Black Liberation Theology, but the whole business of cherry-picking "God damn America" without offering analysis of the full sermon, if not Wright's career, seems dubious.
What's fascinating is that our purportedly superior academic overlords set such a terrible example in this regard.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This is why I thought conservatives were incorrect to go after Jeremiah Wright

Comments Filter:
  • You started off by referring to my pointing out that Duck Man exposed his own homophobia by stating he believes that A (homosexuality) leads directly to B (murder) which is not in the biblical verse that you provided. Then you went on to declare moral victory by attempting to place words in my mouth. You wrapped up by referring to someone who hasn't been mentioned widely in a number of years.

    Can you make your statement more illogical by maybe including Benghazi, Obamacare, 9/11, and the Easter Bunny a
    • My point is that, in attempting to build a case that Roberson went on a "homphobic rant", you haven't show either, and are engaging in an Alinskyite attack that was as bad as anything ever done in the name of propaganda, offering Jeremiah Wright as a case in point.
      For somebody a self-appointed, morally superior Lefty overlord, you seem to be falling short in the self-reflection department here.
      • in attempting to build a case that Roberson went on a "homphobic rant"

        I demonstrated that his interview, and his worldview, are rooted in homophobia. Apparently you didn't read where I did that, which suggests that it won't be worth doing it again. In the unlikely event that you suddenly decide to start reading my comments here is one place where I showed how deep the homophobia is with him [slashdot.org].

        For somebody a self-appointed, morally superior

        Now you're just applying random labels without regard for reality. I never made any such claim of myself.

        you seem to be falling short in the self-reflection department here.

        Being as the second part of that statement requires the first part to be tr

        • You haven't show any actual "fear" in any of the words in the GQ interview. You also haven't justified the use of "rant". You're making that up, and trying to pull in other "politically incorrect" utterances to bolster a false argument. You succeed in piling on the foolishness.
          • You haven't show any actual "fear" in any of the words in the GQ interview

            If you can't read my comment to the point where you can even see that very simple fact, then there is no point in having this conversation. I laid it out very plainly for you. It appears even when I linked back to it you couldn't be bothered to read it.

            You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

            Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

            You're making that up, and trying to pull in other "politically incorrect" utterances

            Where did I talk about "politically incorrect" or anything along that

            • You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

              Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

              No, you called the GQ interview a "homophobic rant", RIGHT HERE [slashdot.org]. This has been the entire rub of the issue. You're crapflooding, you're caught in the open, and you don't care to admit it.

              • You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

                Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

                No, you called the GQ interview a "homophobic rant", RIGHT HERE. This has been the entire rub of the issue. You're crapflooding, you're caught in the open, and you don't care to admit it.

                Smitty I really, really, wish you would return to your previous level of reading comprehension. We were capable of having civilized discussions back then. I don't know if I did something to permanently piss you off and cause you to not read my writing or what, but allow me to show you something from the very JE of mine that you just linked to [slashdot.org].

                Right after the italicized bit that slashdot strangely decided to render with a "quote" tag:

                his homophobic rant in a magazine interview

                Notice that I said "homophobic rant IN a magazine interview". You ar

                • You are erroneously accusing me of calling the entire interview a homophobic rant.

                  No, I'm driving home the point that you cannot justify using "homophobic rant". You're making that up.

                  • I would ask why you are attempting to weasel away from your own words, but that is your new standard MO now it appears. You explicitly said one thing two comments ago and now are trying to disown it as if you did not say it. We are beyond a failure to communicate when you can't even use the English language the same way now as we did just a few months ago.
                    • A few months ago, you were not labeling statements "homophobic rants" without basis, and trying to accuse me of calling for POTUSide. I haven't gone anywhere; you've become unhinged. I tried twice, with the Wright JE and the Olive Branch JE to bring things back to some point of stability. But, like ObamaCare, you just change the rules to win the news cycle, apparently.
                    • A few months ago, you were not labeling statements "homophobic rants" without basis

                      Nor did I do it this time. I showed how the statement in question is a homophobic rant. You haven't bothered to actually read what I write in support of that label (which is not even remotely close to being exclusively mine in regards to the statement).

                      Furthermore we were not discussing homophobic rants months ago either.

                      and trying to accuse me of calling for POTUSide

                      That is factually incorrect. I have been pointing out your endless conspiracy theories for many months. You can go all the way back to some of your earliest JEs after January 2009 a

                    • JEs after January 2009 and find where I pointed out that you were eager to find an excuse to throw out the POTUS and not concerned about the legal requirements for doing such.

                      You could, with equal reason, accuse my JEs of causing global warming (or whatever focus-grouped term you're using to focus these days).
                      I've never done other than support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and am in fact a retired veteran.
                      The implication of your CFL reference on my other JE implies you might be a Canuck, so let me forgive you this insult.

                    • I've never done other than support and defend the Constitution of the United States

                      The Constitution of the United States lays out a rather specific mechanism for removal of the POTUS. For the most part you have not shown any concern for it as your primary concern has been the removal in any way possible. I have asked you if it was simply an oversight brought on by excitement earlier, and you never responded to that query which supports the hypothesis that you don't care what methods are used so long as the POTUS is out. When you have a long history of calling for his removal without s

                    • You're just making it up as you go. And my status as a veteran has everything to do with this, as you would know, had you clue #1, sir.

I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.

Working...