Bill O'Reilly, Rev Wright = David Duke

I know white people attend. David Duke didn't invite blacks to his KKK meetings.

White people danced on Soul Train too. It has no bearing on whether the message Wright gives is racist or not.

I've defended some of the guy's statements and I dont see you doin anything about it. If its so indefensible then certainly you can knock down my arguments without much effort.

Thats why I havent done much about it. Its essentially contemptable.

He's right about our foreign policy and use of terrorism coming back to haunt us.

Sorry, but thats just incorrect.

What I find disgusting are politicians who tell us we're being attacked because we are free, or preachers blaming 9/11 on abortion or gays. C'mon, you wanna talk about religious nuts?

Or preachers that say AIDs was developed simply to kill black people?

Right.
 
I thought he was talking about the government.

Which of course he has made clear many times he believes to be nothing but evil white people.

Oh to be a liberal, and be free of the harsh barriers of reality.

Oh, and btw Berz, I haven't enslaved/whipped/lynched/denied sufferage to any black people, so why is it okay for him to hate me?
 
Berz, you seem to be making a fundamental flaw in your logic. Your arguement seems to be.

Duke is a racist (I don't see too much arguement here) and a terrorist, as a Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Wright is not a terrorist, as we have no indication that he ever lynched white people

Therefore, Wright is not a racist.

Correllary. All terrorists, even seperatist movements from governments, are racists by definition.


Racism has to due with fundamental judging of people based on superficialities of race, not whether or not, based on those judgements, you take a bomb to their homes. Someone can secretely hate all people of (insert ethnic group of choice) and never act on it. That person would still be a racist!
 
It dont matter if they are racist, one terrorized black people and you (and O'Reilly) are equating that with the victim's hatred of the terrorists.
It does matter if they're both racist, because you're apologizing for one of them. Racism should never be tolerated, and you're only making yourself look bad by excusing it.

Wright isn't a criminal (That I know of), while David Duke has committed crimes. Fine, I won't dispute that. But in my view, they are moral equivalents and equally disgusting individuals.

But it aint racist. And I'm still waiting for this proof of racism. And yer hyperbole aint even close to reality, it aint that bizarre for a black man acquainted with the syphilis episode in our history to suspect the government had something to do with AIDS.
Considering that he blames white people for US government policy, yes, it is a racist conspiracy theory. And yes, it is that bizarre, and shows how ignorant he really is - HIV was first detected in the 1950's, it just wasn't recognized as an epidemic until the 1980's. Making a virus in the 1950's like this would have been impossible.

Huh? We're talking about comparing Wright with Duke and in my analogy Duke is the Nazi and Wright is the holocaust survivor. You didn't respond to my point...
And in my analogy, Wright is still the Holocaust survivor. And while it may still be understandable that he's angry, we shouldn't condone or tolerate his bigotry.

Sounds downright Old Testament. But yeah, dont play guilt by association games with me. Quote Wright saying he wants white people to be killed. You're still conflating the hateful reactions of victims to the terrorism that inspired the hateful reactions. If my people were murdered by an army of black people, enslaved for centuries, etc, my opinion of black people would not be favorable. But you'd compare me with the black people enslaving my
people. :goodjob:
So tell me: If John McCain said that "I in no way disagree with Adolf Hitler", would you be playing a "guilt by association game" when you called him a racist psychopath? No, you wouldn't be, and in that situation I'd join you.

When someone says they want people exterminated, and you're familiar with their work, and you say you completely agree with them - then you are, for all intents and purposes, saying you want those same people exterminated. This ain't rocket science man. By saying that he agreed with Dr. Cone's beliefs in every way, Wright made criticism of Cone's ideas legitimate criticism of Wright's ideas. When you adopt another's ideology, you adopt their ideologies flaws as well.

That brings up another question I have, why do so many Republicans sound like fascists when you dont agree with them? Even O'Reilly accused Wright of "hating America". Did Old Testament politicians accuse the Prophets of "hating Israel" whenever they ranted on about the corruption and sin in government?
Wright has probably been accused of hating America because, well, it sounds like he does hate America. :p What part of "God Damn America" is loving? What part of "the US of KKK" is loving? What part of "America deserved 9/11" is so difficult to grasp? He's an anti-American bigot.

And he's not some Old Testament prophet. Stop making that comparison, it's ********. Wright isn't on some mission from God to return America back to its spiritual roots - he's on a mission from himself to make himself look awesome and strong for "standing up to whitey."

As a reminder, this thread is not about Wright being a racist. Its about comparing him to David Duke. If he is a racist, I dont see it in Obama. As for being a leftist, I'll be voting for Bob Barr. As for loathing America, those are your words (and the internet precludes me from shoving them down yer throat), I'm not enamored by Commies, Socialists, Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, or whoever subverts our Constitution. So you got that wrong too, yer batting far below the Mendoza Line
Vote for who you wish, I don't care. (Although I'm a little happy that you're throwing away your vote instead of helping Obama)
 
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Wow, theologically speaking, there is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin...

Don't pull the victim of political correctness card. It isn't applicable now.

He suggested a lynching party for Christ's sake. What do you think "lynching party" means?

Because only black people were lynched, amirite? Oh no, it's not possible for a person to understand a word in universal terms, HE MUST BE RACIST.

Or maybe he was using it as a general term for an angry mob of people.
 
Black men were given Syphilis by the U.S. government. This is a fact.

So if anybody wants to laugh at any black person that would have the idiocy to think the U.S. government would purposefully infect black people with a S.T.D....

remember, the US government DID do it before, so the idea is not that outrageous.


Oh and Bill O still believes it was Americans that mercilessly slaughtered nazi prisoners at Malmady.
 
Black men were given Syphilis by the U.S. government. This is a fact.

So if anybody wants to laugh at any black person that would have the idiocy to think the U.S. government would purposefully infect black people with a S.T.D....

remember, the US government DID do it before, so the idea is not that outrageous.

Isn't he claiming that the US government engineered the AIDS virus for the sole purpose of killing blacks?

That's a pretty significant difference. Not that that would excuse their actions, if they actually did purposely infect any particular group of people, engineered or not.
 
Black men were given Syphilis by the U.S. government. This is a fact.
No, not quite. Scientists, working for the government in a study, refused to treat black subjects of a syphilis test, and encouraged them not to seek treatment. When it began, it was legitimate, because the treatments commonly given for syphilis actually were toxic and dangerous, and probably made people even worse - where they went so wrong was in not informing the subjects properly, and then witholding treatment after effective medicine was discovered. And to my knowledge, they never actively infected anyone. You can argue that, morally speaking, infecting someone and convincing someone not to be treated are fairly similar, but it's not technically accurate, as far as I know.

If you have a source saying that they actually intentionally infected people, then I'll be happy to withdraw my objection.

So if anybody wants to laugh at any black person that would have the idiocy to think the U.S. government would purposefully infect black people with a S.T.D....

remember, the US government DID do it before, so the idea is not that outrageous.
Actually, it is outrageous. And I'll give you several reasons why that is so.

1. The results of the Tuskegee experiments became widely known in the early 1970's. As a result, standards were set up regarding medical experimentation which are harder to avoid - so the chances of this happening again are much, much lower, just scientifically.

2. Being found infecting people like this would be even worse political suicide now than it was then. Politicians are selfish creatures, and I don't think they'd endanger their jobs out of random spite towards black people. It's not that I think they're too good - just that they're too selfish.

3. It wasn't possible to create a virus like HIV/AIDS in the 1950's, when it was first discovered. I'm not sure it'd even be possible today, but it certainly wouldn't have been fifty years ago.

4. There's absolutely no evidence suggesting that this is true.

5. What Wright is talking about is an intentional campaign to eliminate minorities, not a medical test. Tuskegee was a medical test - the goal had a legitimate medical purpose, even if the way they went about the study was horrible and immoral on numerous grounds. That is entirely different from genocide, which is what Wright is proposing. And when you're going to accuse someone, especially your own government, of genocide, you need proof. (See 4) Need any more, or is that enough?


Believing that the US government invented AIDS to kill black people is stupid on so many levels. I guess it's only moderately more stupid than the NAU or 9/11 conspiracy theories ethat you've defended in the past, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're defending this now. But I am, just a little.
 
Black men were given Syphilis by the U.S. government. This is a fact.

No, its not a fact. They werent given or injected with syphilis by the government, they were merely not treated with penicillen in order to study the long term effects of the disease with no treatment given. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

So if anybody wants to laugh at any black person that would have the idiocy to think the U.S. government would purposefully infect black people with a S.T.D....

I laugh at you for being so incorrect on your facts.

remember, the US government DID do it before, so the idea is not that outrageous.

Remember, to actually CHECK on your sources prior to actually posting!
 
Seriously, if the US government wanted to get rid of the blacks in the country, they could have done it without having to dabble with dangerous viruses that could easily backfire. Look at what a "great" job they did with the native American Indians.
 
No, not quite. Scientists, working for the government in a study, refused to treat black subjects of a syphilis test, and encouraged them not to seek treatment.

I stand corrected.

However, the past history of the way the US governemtn has treated blacks is certainly enough to allow black people to cast a weary eye on it today, especially people who were alive in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
 
so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're defending this now. But I am, just a little.

Im not defending it. I in no way believe AIDs was fabricated, by the US government or anyone, to kill blacks or otherwise.

However, if I was black, I surely would be suspicious of a government that had treated my people like they did the tuskeegee airmen.
 
Seriously, if the US government wanted to get rid of the blacks in the country, they could have done it without having to dabble with dangerous viruses that could easily backfire.

For instance... the CIA/FBI funneling drugs into the ghettos... wait... not backfire?
 
For instance... the CIA/FBI funneling drugs into the ghettos... wait... not backfire?

Which would only serve to exacerbate the perceived "black problem" in the first place. -_-
 
I stand corrected.

However, the past history of the way the US governemtn has treated blacks is certainly enough to allow black people to cast a weary eye on it today, especially people who were alive in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Yeah, because all the work that white people did in supporting the civil rights movement didnt really matter......
 
Of course the work of white people in the Civil Rights movement matters. Which is why this isn't about "white people!"

Cleo
 
Of course the work of white people in the Civil Rights movement matters. Which is why this isn't about "white people!"

Cleo

But it is. White people and the Government are synonmyous to Wright, they are both "The Man."
 
Back
Top Bottom