Bill O'Reilly, Rev Wright = David Duke

Aegis

Who's claiming that? Use a quote, not even Wright made that assertion.

I was responding to you, but I suppose I misinterpreted what you said:

Lets see, what is the plausibility that 9/11 was a result of God being mad at us over abortion and gays. Or...
Some govt agency started AIDS to kill black people.

ie. either 9/11 was the result of god being mad or it was the result of a govt agency started aids.

It was late. I was tired. :lol:

I see a big difference, one church enabled and protected pedophiles for decades while another is guilty of making a few false and/or controversial claims about the gov't.

I dont expect Catholics to leave their church. Nor do I expect them to chastise others for staying with their churches thru thick and thin. You missed the point... O'Reilly and Hannity are blasting Obama for not leaving his church while they stayed with the Catholic Church in spite of its pedophile problems. Thats called hypocrisy... Do as I say, not as I didn't...

The entire church didn't do all of the molestation and cover up. You're suggesting that O'reilly & Hannity should leave their churches based on what happened at other churches, not their own. The difference is while the pedophilia and cover up was going on in other churches around the country, what Obama was supposedly hearing was in his own church. O'reilly & Hannity were not advocating he leave his branch of Christianity entirely, they were chastising him for not leaving that particular church and joining another one, considering what was being preached about. That is where the controversy lies: That he supposedly sat there and heard these terrible sermons and it did not upset him and it did not cause him to want to join a different church to get away from the hate-mongering.
 
Well, I do see where the terrorists are coming from... Thats nice.I truly believe that the whole terrorist problem could have been solved in 2004 had America not invaded Iraq. That to is nice.Your Republican party would have been vindicated and Bush proclaimed a national hero. Rather he invaded Iraq and made even more Arabs hate America.No they hated us before. With all the troop strength in Iraq pushed into Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda would have been destroyed within three years.
Really? You do know that Iraq didn't pull any troops out of Afghanistan. And Afghanistan didn't need them. Also Al Queda isn't in Afghanistan its in Pakistan. The taliban also are mostly in Pakistan. They come across the border and attack. Thats why they killed Buhto. She had more balls then Musharif to clean up warsiastan. There are plenty of troops in Afghanistan but alas to many are basically worthless European NATO troops that sit as far back as possible to avoid actual fighting.

I really am glad you can see where the terrorist are coming from. It makes all the difference.
 
Read the red.

Post like a normal person. It makes it easier to reply to you.

And I cant let this pass:

Maneck21 said:
They wanted to see what happened, so they injected people. This is a fact. It is not disputable that some black men were given syphilis. Just another part of scientific racism.

Completely false. It is not a fact. Its an urban legend. Please read the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

You will find not one instance referenced of where they injected anyone with syphilis.

Dont like that reference? Here try even the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mills/blacks-injected-with-sy_b_92896.html

Lord knows the HP would love to trash the government over injecting black men with syphilis. But they cant...why? Because it never happened.

To wit: "But the government did not infect black men with syphilis."

Let me repeat that for you in case you didnt catch it: "But the government did not infect black men with syphilis."

So much for your 'facts'.
 
Aegis
You're suggesting that O'reilly & Hannity should leave their churches based on what happened at other churches, not their own.

I'm not suggesting they leave their church. I'm laughing at them for criticizing Obama for not leaving his church while they've stayed with the Catholic Church in spite of FAR WORSE offenses than some black preacher who made angry statements about the gov't. Second, regarding the pedophile scandal, the fish rotted from the head down. It aint some other church covering up, it was The Catholic Church covering it up. Given what Wright has seen in his life, I'm willing to cut him slack. But I also think Obama is a better preacher and Wright should listen to his former parishioner.
 
It'll wear off, then you'll realize, that the media is making a big deal out of nothing, trying to hang Obama with guilt by association. Then you'll realize you've been hoodwinked, and all this arguing on the internet was easily crushed by the simple assertion it is guilt by association.

It may work on the lame brain tv heads in the vast american mind-wastes, but not here, where some modicum of intelligence is required for discourse.

58% Say Obama Denounced Wright for Political Convenience, not Outrage

Friday, May 02, 2008

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation’s Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most—58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.

Wright held a mini-media tour last weekend capped by a press conference at the National Press Club on Monday. Only 33% of voters believe that Obama was surprised by the views Wright expressed at Monday’s press conference. Fifty-two percent (52%) say he was not surprised.

Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.” That figure includes 26% who say it’s Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it’s Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it’s Not at All Likely.

Just 7% of the nation’s voters agree with Wright’s views of the United States. African-American voters, by a 64% to 12% margin, disagree with Wright. Eighty-one percent (81%) of all voters are following the story somewhat or very closely.

Nine percent (9%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Wright. Eight-one percent (81%) have an unfavorable view. That includes 62% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.

As you would expect, there are strong partisan differences on these questions. Generally, Democrats are divided while Republicans take a less charitable view of Obama.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it’s somewhat or very likely that Obama shares some of Wright’s views. That assessment is shared by 48% of Democrats and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Democrats are evenly divided as to whether or not Obama was surprised by Wright’s comments on Monday. Republicans overwhelmingly reject that notion. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 36% say Obama was surprised while 45% disagree.

Just 36% of Democrats believe outrage was the motivation for Obama to denounce his former Pastor. That view is shared by 38% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Republicans.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._wright_for_political_convenience_not_outrage

11% of voters agree with you. How does it feel to be more rare than a Bush supporter?
 
what I dont get is, Obama is roughly half and half. And Wright looks even lighter than him. Both these guys got a lot of white blood in them but I'm supposed to believe Wright is a racist and Obama shares his views?
 
what I dont get is, Obama is roughly half and half. And Wright looks even lighter than him. Both these guys got a lot of white blood in them but I'm supposed to believe Wright is a racist and Obama shares his views?
Obama is half-black and half-white-guilt-liberal.
 
Back
Top Bottom