As I’ve said at my place, this is a valuable discussion, and I’m glad that we’re having it. But it is regrettable that we’re only having it in the context of damage control for Obama’08.

Ummm … yeah. We were supposed to have the race discussion after Hurricane Katrina. Whatever happened to that?

Oh, and since I’m up on this couch, tell me why it’s OK for a church choir to sing about how American has turned her back on God and doesn’t deserve God’s blessing because of two famous court rulings, and they can perform this dreck at a “Values Voter” debate, and no one bats an eyelash?

For some reason when conservatives blame America it’s OK but when liberals do it it’s not. Why is that?

I didn’t attend the Values Voters summit–”watching” the Religious Right is your job.

But I (and others, perhaps) are just hoping that you Liberals are as outraged by people like Wright (and his parishioner, Obama) as you are by the Falwells and Robertsons.

For Believers, there is certainly a possible causal relationship between what happens in the world and what God thinks. It is dicey to presume that we can discern the connection and it is even dicier to willy-nilly connect every bad event with the failure of the policy proposal du jour. Bottom line is that I’d suspect that most Americans kind of agree with criticisms of libertine trends in America and most Americans kind of reject “Black Liberation” theology.

Re. Katrina–what was the debate that needed to be had? No one (from your side of the aisle) is interested in a candid discussion of race. New Orleans (and its enablers in LA state gov’t) was dysfunctional and hardcore Democratic. It would have been great if the Feds had been able to pull off a miracle–when faced with the greatest natural disaster in American history–while battling it out with local and state gov’t leaders, but . . .

If by “some” you mean the “overwhelming vast majority,” then yep, thats what I meant.

Look, I’ll be perfectly honest, the reason why I’m more upset at Falwell than Wright (as the opposite likely goes with you Ned), is because on some of the Wright made, I find a grain of truth…whereas Falwell’s brand of social conservatism is far more morally repugnant to me than Wright’s “unpatriotic” fervor.

On the matter of “chickens coming home to roost,” I most certainly don’t think that 9/11 was a “moral” punishment for our foreign policy. But do I think 9/11 was the result of blowback from a host of previous overt and covert military actions? Yep.

When he said “God damn America,” I took it to be a rhetorical turn of phrase, and the essence of what he was saying, “woe unto America” for its military and domestic actions. I doubt I’d agree with all of Wright’s conclusions about where our policies have gone wrong, but is there vast room for critique? Yep.

Has Hillary ever been called the “n-word”? I doubt it.

The one major issue I’d take with Wright, was when he talked of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. I can’t find what he said exactly, but I generally dislike when Blacks or Whites are dismissive of these two (or any Black Republicans) because they are Republicans.

What discussion? I read a lot of finger wagging from conservatives (and a lot of supporters of Sen. Clinton) desperately trying to keep the focus on Wright. I don’t read much discussion of race in America.

What’s more, the conservative’s idea of a discussion on race is usually framed as a discussion of the ils in the “Black community.” A discussion of race should include not only talking among groups (more than simply Black and White, ya know), but also White people discussing “Whiteness.”

Also, you lot need some schooling about what goes on in “the Black church.” Too much to address here, though.

Alot of supporters of Hillary Clinton have been in the trenchs for years and not just watching movies, reading books and listening to their parents tell stories. The conservatives, ala Falwell, B Graham, Reagen, etc, did a major piece of work on all of us. Meanwhile, most of the USA was drugged out or watching TV with make believe families that they thought or hoped were their own. And some of us who are white, middle class and liberal have been attending lots of churches and know about Obama’s church’s rhetoric. It’s not unique to his church. As Marx said: Religion is the opium of the people.

Oh brother. Another old warrior telling tales. Okay, you wanna compare stripes? Where were you in 96? I know where I was, on the floor of the convention in Chicago working for Clinton/Gore AKA “in the trenches.” What does it have to do with anything? My parents tell me stories about the National Guard pumping bullets into our apartment during riots. They tell stories from their youth about the kid down the street from them who got lynched. Maybe you ought to listen to some stories some times, they’ve got a lot.

Where were you in 56 and 66? I know where I was. In Alabama. No, there was no one pumping bullets into my house but I was out there when I was being called many names for caring and standing up and being in the minority for being white and saying all people are the same! It just goes on and on and your experience is not the first or will be the last.

Okay…I have been fasting from politics, but this whole thing has got me interested again…what is this speech and where can i find it?

Dr. Ned Williams:

Emphasis on “amateur”.

Reba, the speech is at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/?mod=googlenews_wsj. You can watch and listen at this link: http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=d5d8169a-2779-4259-803b-5ee828b48835

Sean,
“overwhelming majority”? All I see is a (small) handful of snippets lasting (less than) 3-4 minutes over 20 years of ministry.

And yes, I know that your agreement with elements of what Wright (not to mention your confidence in and commitment to Obama) diminishes your concern for these statements. I’ve already said how I feel about similar, limited (in scope, implications and number) pronouncements from people like Falwell and Robertson. Aside from the societal value of “discussing these issues,” you can only hope that more American voters than not sympathize with Wright’s (and Obama’s) fundamental premises.

fke,
Great; thanks for the Marx quote–he’s got all kinds of authority with me. That being said, democommie is probably tracking with you big time.

democommie,
dang, you busted me. But I needed a hook, ya know?

gm,
As far as the subject of discussion, this Wright/Obama thing is just rolling with the punches.

But finger-pointing is common to man, and when the “data” being discussed is related to the “ills” of the black community, what else should we discuss? Let’s discuss “whiteness.” Let’s discuss this from the Liberal perspective, but please forgive us if we approach the problems from a different perspective and with different presumptions.

For those who like context.

I’ve only been paying half attention to this whole thing, but I’m still not quite clear on why what this pastor said is the worst thing in the world.

I never have been. It’s not popular to hate America and it makes us all uncomfortable when someone says they do, but to be honest there are a few people who have good reason to.

One of the things I love about America is that here you’re supposed to be free to say what you want, and even to criticise. It should be that when someone criticises we make note of the criticism and use that to better ourselves.

sorry fke but you don’t get points for being born before I was. This was my point, really, A Clinton supporter should no more rely on the experience argument than Clinton herself, because it’s vapid.

Ned, demcommie is right about the amateur thing!

You’ve reiterated my point; This is to be a discussion about race relations. That means interplay, that means interaction, that means reacting to each other. How we perceive each other. Among other things.

Conservatives can only seem to conceive of discussing race relations from your narrow “perspective” as a problem of the other. Gosh darn it, if those Blacks and Mexicans didn’t steal so much then I could like them.

You want to deal with “data” because you think it is on your side.

It’s what is at the heart of Ferraro’s gaffe; always an assumption

looks like a part of my post got cut off . . . oh well

“But finger-pointing is common to man”

A self serving statement no less!

Serious political or social discussions can never be had with the attitude of “you liberals’ or even you conservatives’.Like it’s a BAD thing to be one or the other.

cb,
Well, Liberals and Conservatives do believe certain things don’t they? And I never assigned the “finger pointing” flaw to either side of the debate; it’s simply the human reaction to seemingly blameworthy statistics.

gm,
Let’s interplay. What else can we discuss if not data? I’m game.

I acknowledge that I have a perspective; surely you are willing to acknowledge the same thing.

I’m not saying that you need to drop everything for a discussion with the White Conservative, and I certainly appreciate that many discussions are a waste of time, but it appears to me like you’re the one that doesn’t want to “discuss race.”

KC,
Hmmm, maybe you should ask Obama what’s wrong with some of the things Wright has said. And of course he’s free to say whatever he wants, just like I’m free to say whatever I want about whatever he wants to say.

And for the record, criticizing America isn’t per se wrong. It’s the basis for the criticism that matters.

Ned,

In other words, its fine to blame America for the plight of Blacks if you say its because of welfare, abortion, lax drug policies, sex ed, etc…but blaming the after effects of segregation, slavery, and the war on drugs? Well, thats just unpatriotic.

GM. No one gets points for being born whenever but experience does count. If we don’t learn from history, it is repeated: war, hate thy neighbor for being different on and on. It is quite ironic though because many of us 50 somethings have said we now know how our parents felt back during the 60s and 70s. It’s just interesting to watch and listen to you guys know it all.

It’s the basis for the criticism that matters.

Presuming acceptance of that statement as an absolute, who is the arbiter of determining which bases are groundless and which other bases have merit?

Hmmm, maybe you should ask Obama what’s wrong with some of the things Wright has said.

Obama or Obama’s speechwriters?

In matters of opinion, though, I think both Obama and his speechwriters can have an opinion on what the pastor said–but their opinions don’t have any more ground than those of the pastor himself. Or you or me.

Unless someone is stating a tangible, provable absolute (ie 2+2=4) then what he is saying is opinion and therefore shaded by experience and perception.

Anyone else’s decision that the speaker is “wrong” is shaded by that person’s perception.

One thing I find interesting in this conversation is that no one has noticed just how racist the Reverend Wright is. He is a racist bigot.

The Washington Post had this a few weeks ago-

“Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan.”

If you are praising Farrakhan’s “astounding and eyeopening” analysis of the “racial ills of this nation,” a “perspective” that is “helpful and honest” then you too are a racist bigot.

Read here for the award info-

http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/nov_dec_feature.pdf

Tman,

You love the Kevin Bacon game, don’t you?

fke
“It’s just interesting to watch and listen to you guys know it all.”

This is a “pot call.” It was you who jumped into the discussion with the old warrior argument. If younger peeps can learn from older, then it works both ways.

Ned,
“What else can we discuss if not data?”
A lot. Let’s start with discussing why you want to insist on a discussion about race relations being an exercise in empirical observations? Is it because of your lack of consideration of how you relate to people of a different ethnicity that all you have to discuss is statistics? Or perhaps you’re completely uninterested in discussing race relations, only interested in making some point about “liberals?”

Tman
One thing I find interesting is the goofy attempts to latch Sen. Obama to Farrakhan. This one is a fumble, sorry.

Here’s a bit for discussion. Find a quote from Wright that is racist. I’ll charitably accept even one that is racist by moderate inference. Remember, I said “quote,” not interpretation, not a quote from some distant associate you can imagine Wright might agree with, something that fell from his mouth or his pen.

Sean,

The Kevin Bacon game? I think Obama doesn’t believe the same things that Wright does, but I do believe that Wright believes many if not most of the Black Liberation Theology that Farrakhan preaches. That’s why they gave him an award, named after Wright, to Farrakhan. If David Duke gave an award to McCains life-changing preacher that espoused and validated his wacky racist ideals, then I would call him a bigot too.

Again, I believe Obama doesn’t espouse the views that Wright has, but he probably should of realized that sooner or later the guy that he knew was his “wacky old uncle” was the same guy that he bragged about being his “spiritual mentor”. My grandfather was a racist bigot raised in a poor section of New York after coming over from Ireland on a boat, but I would never in a million years defend his views nor state that he was my “spiritual mentor”.

Gandalf,

He has stated that white people are responsible for the AIDS Virus with the intent of killing of black people. He calls the US the USKKKA. He believes that Jews are commiting genocide against Palestinians. He believes America -not the sicko Islamic terrorists- are responsible for 9/11.

For Obama to get people over this issue, he could have come out and said-

“I don’t believe that AIDS was created by white men. I don’t believe that 9/11 was Americas fault. I don’t believe that Jews are commiting genocide against Palestinians.”

If he stated that instead of this “hey, well, ya know we all have crazy uncles” bit, this whole thing would have been over by now.

Ned Williams:

Once again you have determined how and what I think. What ever gave you the idea that I’m “tracking with you (fek) big time? Actually I know nothing about him or his politics. His comments are not transparent to me.

Nice dig at the dems in NOLA. Of course Brownie and his boss, Michael “Lord Skeletor” Chertoff are both longtime reptilicans who were appointed by Bush and spent the first 24-48 hours ignoring the problem. But, yeah it was the dems fault and of course, the gays. Didn’t the late, not so great Falwell and Robertson both think that Katrina was GOD’s punishment for New Orleans being turned into a Sodom and Gommorah theme park?

Race relations in this country are terrible. How to make them better? Treat everyone like they’re white if you’re white, treat everyone like they’re black if you’re black.

TMan:

I haven’t read the whole speech. Where is that ““hey, well, ya know we all have crazy uncles”” line in the speech?

democommie,

I was paraphrasing. Again, Obama would have put this whole issue to rest if he stated matter-of-fact “I have now been made aware that my mentor stated the following things that I do not believe. Those things are etc.etc.etc.”

Instead he gave a speech that somewhat excused Wright for having these ridiculous views. I mentioned earlier that my grandfather was a racist bigot, and part of that had to do with the area in which he was born, and how minorities treated each other. But it sure as hell wasn’t an EXCUSE for being a racist bigot. He was wrong despite these realities. And I am still ashamed of him to this day.

People are racist bigots because they-

A.) don’t know any better-were raised in racist households by racist parents and family members who reinforced their bankrupt ideals.

or

B.) People who choose to be ignorant of the fact that people are to be judged by the content their character, not the color of their skin, and judge people on outdated and failed ideologies.

Most are a combination thereof.

Sometimes GM us “typical white women” just don’t know when to sit down and be quiet. And, of course, some of us are elderly too!

In other words, its fine to blame America for the plight of Blacks if you say its because of welfare, abortion, lax drug policies, sex ed, etc…but blaming the after effects of segregation, slavery, and the war on drugs? Well, thats just unpatriotic.

Nope; didn’t say that. In fact, I’m not sure race has ever been an element of such statements by Falwell or Robertson. You’re conflating the issues, it appears.

kc,
Of course this is all subjective. Wright and Obama have a right to say whatever they want and I have the right to criticize whatever they want to say. The determination of whether said opinions are “wrong” is part of the debate, right? But whether you are convinced anything Wright said was wrong, it appears that Obama (or his speechwriters, but there’s no “my speechwriter wrote that” exemption) thought some of it was bad, wrong or offensive.

dc,
Hey, your chosen screenname is “democommie” . . . Marx was a commie. No digs on NOLA, it’s called debate. The Democrats controlled NO and LA when those hurricanes hit (and decades preceding that hurricane). Maybe Dubya should have invaded the city to rescue them from themselves, but that sounds kind of fascist, doesn’t it?

GM,
Well then let’s NOT talk about data or statistics of empirical junk. You choose the playing field, you frame the issue. I’m working hard to discuss “race” with you here.

You’ve challenged t-man to produce a racist quote from Wright:

I guess we should define a “racist.” I mean that it is someone who interjects race into discussions, situations, issues where it is not relevant. Of course, determining “relevance” is key, but, GM, what is your definition of “racism” or “racist”?

Here’s a quote loaded with “racism” in my humble opinion:
• “It just came to me within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the model. He ain’t white, he ain’t rich, and he ain’t privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons.”

I think identifying Wright as a “racist” involves considering more than a single comment or quote. He may not be a racist, but he sure seems to see race in everything. In a comment about the “context” clip over at Sean’s blog I noted, for example, that Wright raised the issue of race where it was (pretty obviously, I’d say) not relevant.

But how do you define “racist”?

Again, I’m not “insisting” on anything in proposing a discussion about race. Let’s talk, GM.

Is everyone forgetting that Obama is half white, raised by his white grandmother? Why is it that if a person is mixed they are automaticaly black?

[…] But based on some typically thoughtful and typically provocative comments by Gandolf Mantooth on this post, it occurred to me that the underlying issues of the Wright story are not actually being […]

While I don’t think that anyone has forgotten that fact, it is an interesting question to consider.

I suppose the practice is motivated by different things with different people.

Ned Williams:

If one accepts the accounts of his life and teachings, Jesus Christ was a much better communist than Marx could ever be. So maybe I’ll just change my name to “Jesuscommie”.

I know you have a “day job” while I’ve got nothing but time on my hands; so, heres a few definitions for racist:

From Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

From Wikipedia:

Racism has many definitions, the correct being that members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. Racism inherently starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. Without this assumption, prejudices against different peoples would be catagorised as being prejudices related to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction.

From the Free Dictionary by Farlex (online):

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Based on those definitions and reading the text of the quotation that you cite by Pastor Wright, I’d say he is anything but racist. Nowhere in his diatribe does Wright say that Obama is better than caucasians or that caucasians are not as good as non-caucasians. He laments the fact that Obama is hated because he does not “fit the mold”.

Wright’s speech in that quote is a lot of things. It’s theater, it’s over the top, it’s bitter, it’s nasty, it stings (if one feels guilty about the fact that WE have oppressed THEM–in fact some of OUR ancestors owned some of theirs–since before 1776; you could even say it’s just plain mean. But, it doesn’t appear to be racist.

You still haven’t answered the question about Hagee.

Happy Vernal Equinox fete.

I answered your Hagee question on the thread you asked it.

You’re still stinging over my reference to the fact that I don’t have time to waste researching your arguments? I guess I can conclude that you don’t have a day job? If that’s true, all the more reason for you to do your own research.

Okay, let’s analyze the quote. Who says there’s a “mold”? Who is accusing others of “hating” someone because they don’t fit that “white” mold? Who is pushing a vote to a black audience of a candidate because he’s black (as if having experienced being called “the n word” is some significant qualification to be president). What is it that “negroes” “aren’t getting,” according to Wright? Is it possible to oppose Obama without being a racist? Is choosing Hillary over Obama “hating on” Obama?

Of course, all of those questions should reasonably be considered in light of Wright’s body of work–fondness for Farakhan, afro-centric teachings, etc.

And while I’m not sure that I agree with how narrowly “racism” is defined in those definitions (I especially like the wikipedia one that throws in the gratuitous “if it weren’t for racism, we’d have other prejudices that we’d use”), afro-centrism certainly qualifies as thinking one race superior to another.

Heck, I think “racial prejudice” is a better term to work with. That would entail “prejudice” ((1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics) based on race.

Okay, I see people have moved on, but we need a point of clarification about Wright and the AIDS comment. He believes that it is possible THE GOVERNMENT not WHITE PEOPLE intentionally infected gays and Black men w/ aids. Before you scoff, remember that the government intentionally infected Black men with an STD for purposes of an experiment in the 40’s. Well documented. So I understand completely why older people believe AIDS to be a government plot. And I don’t tell them it’s “silly,” or walk out, I just respectfully disagree. Which is what Sen. Obama has done with Rev. Wright.

I could go on with the rest of Tman’s response, just everyone note that no one has yet to produce a quote. Just paraphrasing and characterizations which is all they have, really.

I’ll be back for the other comments.

“no one has yet produced” it should read . . .

Fair enough, GM, but who is the culprit in this scenario if not white Americans? Is it Capitalists? Jews? Hispanics? Asians? Other blacks?

From what I’ve read, afro-centric thought allows that being “Black” or “White” is more of a mindset than a skin color, right? And that might explain why it doesn’t matter that black physicians were involved with the Tuskegee Project.

But GM, how can we expect to have trust between persons of different races if such a conspiracy is left unchallenged? Do you think Wright–given his intellect and education and experience, really believes the AIDS conspiracy theory?

Ned Williams:

You answered my question about Hagee? Please show me the answer that you posted on this thread.

I’m not stinging over your comment about whether or not I have day job. I think you’re a guy who makes a ton of assumptions about me and other folks based on the fact that you don’t like our politics or moral values. Too bad, so sad–for you.

You said Wright’s comment was racist, in your opinion:

“Here’s a quote loaded with “racism” in my humble opinion:
• “It just came to me within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the model. He ain’t white, he ain’t rich, and he ain’t privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons.””

Now, you’re saying that it is racial prejudice. Do I hear some sort of apology for mischaracterizing Reverend Wright as a racist? Hmmm, probably not.

Do get back to me with that answer to my Hagee question, please. Thanks so much.

I can see why folks thought that you were using fke to post. We are not the same but do look at issues in similar ways. BTW: If one is self-supporting, why do you have to have a “day” job?

Like I said, I answered it in the thread you asked it. Is there any other faux issue?

No, I’ve given my definition of racism, and I think that Wright qualifies. That being said, if people have different definitions of a word, then you’ve got problems. Every secondary definition in the definitions you provided was kind of close to how I would define racism, but not precise enough. “Racial prejudice” is probably the definition with the least room for misunderstanding. Sorry, no apology forthcoming.

But re. your accusation about me making assumptions based on how wrong you are, er, that we disagree No. YOU TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD CALL MY FREAKING SCHOOLBOARD TO SEE IF YOUR ASSERTION WAS CORRECT, I am busy enough with my paying job, my day job, and with rebutting all of your foolishness to add to my to do list researching so as to prove your foolishness. No assumption. An assertion . . . I’m busy enough with my own work.

If you’re going to make accusations about me insulting you, at least get the insult right.

And feel free to spell out any other assumptions I’ve made about you, dc.

Most of your comments are tiresome since they are focused on guys getting whatever. Let’s talk about children, mothers, and families instead of what happened to men, regardless of their “color”. And, yes, GM, I know all about Tuskeegee, I went to Auburn and I was doing that thing back in the 50s and 60s that you thought was just “old”.

I dunno, Ned, I never thought a government had a “race” unless it was a Nazi one or a South African apartheid one. I suppose then, if that’s true, then regarding wrongs committed pre full enfranchisement, govt. does equal White as a practical matter.

I’m taking the piss a little, but you see what I’m getting at.

My trust in people is not predicated on their belief or disbelief in certain conspiracy theories. I would be in for a divorce were that the case. It just seems odd to place such an artificial barrier up if it gets in the way of real connections between ethnicities. I’ve had White conservative friends who believe in all sorts of madness. Perhaps my friendship with them may not run as deeply as it might with someone who holds similar ideals and philosophies as I do. I can only stand so much.

it doesn’t matter that black physicians were involved with the Tuskegee Project.

Yeah, and Africans helped collect fellow Africans for slavery, which means that its all OK…sort of like if a few Jews were complicit in the Holocaust that means the Nazis weren’t so bad after all.

Sean,
Not exactly what I said, but the fact that even Clinton potential appointees were aware of that project and study certainly provides a little context to how egregious it was.

Happy Easter all.

Ned Williams:

Once again. No, you didn’t answer the question I asked about Hagee. You said that you were “on record” about how you feel about such people. That is not an answer. Do YOU think that it’s alright for McCain to seek and accept endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parley or other, shall we say, non-mainstream (or, as I prefer to call them, “fundie whackjob”) religious leaders? It’s a simple, direct question, Ned Williams. It requires a simple, direct answer.

You are such a crybaby, you don’t like me ( I consider that a compliment), you consistently depict those with whom you disagree as being unreasonable, ignorant of the facts or (as the title of this post might indicate) emotionally conflicted or mentally unsound for not accepting your version of the truth. And yet, you think it wrong when your behavior is mirrored by others.

You said Wright’s comments were racist, then you said you don’t really agree with the “definitions” of racism (there are, I’m certain, numerous other dictionaries available to check). You then go on to re-characterize his comments as “racially prejudiced” which seems like a sort of roundabout way of saying the same thing.

“But re. your accusation about me making assumptions based on how wrong you are, er, that we disagree No. YOU TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD CALL MY FREAKING SCHOOLBOARD TO SEE IF YOUR ASSERTION WAS CORRECT, I am busy enough with my paying job, my day job, and with rebutting all of your foolishness to add to my to do list researching so as to prove your foolishness. No assumption. An assertion . . . I’m busy enough with my own work.”

Here is what I said in the comment thread (2/13/08) on your post about whether your son should be allowed to play football on the local HS team, regardless of the fact that he is not a student:

“Also, once the insurance company’s limits of coverage were reached the school district (ultimately the taxpayer) would be on the hook for any costs arising because of injury other damages awarded by a court in the case of injury or death. Don’t take my word for it (the situation differs from one state to another); ask your local authorities.”

You say you are too busy to do this but, apparently, you are not too busy to spend time during business hours putting posts together and adding comments (which would indicate that you are taking time to read other posts and think about what it is you in those comments) on threads of the posts that others put on MCB. I hope that’s not billable time, Ned Williams.

I know you’re a lawyer, Ned Williams, but I think I would get a second opinion if I asked you a legal question.

Please answer that question I asked, yet again, about McCain, Hagee and Parsley. It’s really not that difficult to answer–unless of course you think he should have a different set of moral rules to go by than other people.

Boy, democommie, what do you really think about me?

No, not cheating clients with billable time. No, not embarrassed that I’m unwilling to call my local schoolboard to find out if some stupid assertion by democommie is true. No, not unfairly assuming about people. No, not unwilling to FLATLY call Rev. Wright a racist, but certainly aware that it’s hard to have a conversation if people are using the same words to mean different things. No, indifferent to whether democommie would trust my legal opinion. No, couldn’t care less about whether democommie is sitting around with nothing to do, but certainly get irritated at the assertion that I’m dodging a mere assertion because I’m unwilling to try and affirm it. No, not dodging the Hagee (and who the heck is Parsley?) question.

Gosh, just so you’ll shut the honk up about Hagee, I’ll put ALL the things I’ve said about him and the issue on three different threads over the past week in one little spot. Sure, candidates can seek endorsements/blessings from religious leaders. Hagee qualifies as a religious leader. And Hagee has said some unflattering/critical things about Catholic theology. It’s a free country, isn’t it? Did I miss the report that McCain was being mentored or led or taught for 20 years by Hagee? The same thing is probably true of Rod Parsley. Now what is your point?

Oh, and nannynannypoopoo, Sean Braisted, thankfully, doesn’t have a namecalling, fist flailing melt down when someone dares to disagree with him. Go rescue someone else from mean ol’ Evangelical, Republican, Religious Conservative, homeschooling, Originalist Ned.

[…] in Nashville, a discussion of the speech and a subsequent discussion of race popped up on one popular local aggregator, Music City Bloggers. […]

Ned Williams:

You can call me any names you like, Ned Williams.

I just read a comment of yours to Bridgett about how tough it is to have a conversation with people who call people names. For you to say something like that to Bridgett while you engage in precisely that behavior is flat out hypocrisy.

You think I’m attempting to rescue Sean Braisted from you? That’s not help that he needs. I know that you a really, really smart man, New Williams–because you tell me repeatedly–but I doubt that your intellectual superiority is as apparent to all as it is to you. You keep saying that I’m upset with you for disagreeing with me. Nothing is further from the truth. I don’t care what you think. Dime store geniuses like you abound. What I do get annoyed with is your constant refusal to actually discuss anything. You merely make statements and expect people to accept them as truth. I understand that you’re a lawyer Ned Williams, but a law degree doesn’t make you anymore of an expert on race or racism than those whom you lecture on the subject. You disagreed with three cited definitions on racism because you didn’t like what they said. Fine, go find a source that supports your “definition” and bring it back here to show me. Oh, no, that would be too much work woudn’t it?

What is “shut the honk up”, Ned Williams? I’m not familiar with the term. Please explain its derivation.

So you are willing to call Reverend Wright a racist. Well, it’s good that we’ve cleared that up.

“Gosh, just so you’ll shut the honk up about Hagee, I’ll put ALL the things I’ve said about him and the issue on three different threads over the past week in one little spot. Sure, candidates can seek endorsements/blessings from religious leaders. Hagee qualifies as a religious leader. And Hagee has said some unflattering/critical things about Catholic theology. It’s a free country, isn’t it? Did I miss the report that McCain was being mentored or led or taught for 20 years by Hagee? The same thing is probably true of Rod Parsley. Now what is your point?”

So, you’re saying it’s perfectly okay for McCain to accept Hagee’s and Parley’s endorsements while Obama must denounce Reverend Wright. Okay, that’s good Ned Williams, because it does confirm my suspicion that whatever the KKKristian Right does with the GOP is fine with you, but you are afraid of what will happen if that racist black minister, Jeremy Wright, gets the ear of a candidate. Thanks for clearing that up, Ned Williams.

Yes, democommie, I think it is okay to seek and receive endorsements, democommie, but a candidate must, democommie, be prepared to be evaluated by what said endorser, democommie, believes and/or stands for and/or advocates. He/she/it can then denounce or embrace as he sees fit, democommie.

“Honk” is an exclamatory-type word that keeps mean ol’ Evangelicals like me from using expletives. Expletives lite, you might call it, democommie. “Freaking” is another word you might see substituted.

Did it take you this long to figure out that I believe Wright’s views are racist? Sorry if I wasn’t freaking (see?) explicit enough in all these posts on the matter.

And uh, I’m eager to see where I called you a name. And I’d like to see where I said I was “really intelligent,” too, while you’re accusing. Uh, yes, I have opinions. I assert my opinions. I generally think an assertion is true before asserting it. How that constitutes “not discussing things” I’m curious to know. I’m not sure what you’re accustomed to (though I saw some of your activity over at NiT–post-Brittney, from time to time), but you seem better suited to discussing things with trolls where you can cleverly(!) twist their screenname or just make up a pejorative screenname and do the online equivalent of shouting them down to “win” a debate.

I’d like to just ignore you, but I think it is probably better to address your accusations . . . I e-”reside” here and you seem intent on visiting often. I doubt people (I could be wrong) want to read your petty hectoring comments (or my responses, but it’s so hard to resist).

That being said, the KKK crap you’ve pulled a couple of times (when you were getting embarrassed in the discussion) is pretty close to bannable stuff, in my opinion. The personal attacks are tiring (btw, disagreeing with someone and thereby indirectly telling them they’re wrong isn’t a “personal attack”).

I’m thinking that I’m not going to respond to anymore comments on this post. Time to move on, democommie.

Ned Williams, Ned Williams:

Ooooh, you’re not going to respond to me. Too bad.

“I’d like to just ignore you, but I think it is probably better to address your accusations . . . I e-”reside” here and you seem intent on visiting often. I doubt people (I could be wrong) want to read your petty hectoring comments (or my responses, but it’s so hard to resist).”

You “reside here”, isn’t that precious? Add elitism to your list of virtues, Ned Williams.

You see, Ned Williams, what it is, is this. I don’t care whether you like me or respect me. You are not a person from whom I would want anything–except a straight answer, which you appear unable to give on most questions asked.

You want me banned, Ned Williams? Go for it. I’m not one of those folks who feels compelled to be nice to you because you’re a christian or a lawyer or a stay at home schooling person. None of that matters to me. You offer lame arguments with no factual basis simply because you have a belief. Not the stuff of serious debates, Ned Williams. So why on earth would I ever take you seriously? Whoops, asked and answered.

I don’t care if you reply or not, Ned. If you don’t I’ll just drop by and leave other comments, here and elsewhere, as your various rants dictate.

I want you to know this, Ned Williams.

I take back what I said over on the other thread about “welcome back.”

Was there a question in there?

Re. “elitism” accusation, just a fact, democommie. I have committed to be a contributor to MCB and can’t very well stop hanging around, so me going away (or me ignoring you) is much of an option. For those keeping score at home, that’s Flailing Accusation #15 (or something) shot down.

Ned Williams:

You have committed to be a contributor at MCB, how wonderful for you, not so much for folks who have to either ignore your idiocy (thus making it look as if you are correct in your delusional thinking) or try to treat your arguments as if they are logical.

Your contributions are purely political (and fairly hardcore rightwing) for the most part. Do you put them here because you don’t want to put them on your own blog?

You don’t like me, Ned Williams, you can admit that. It’s really okay, I think you’re a putz, so it’s not like you have to keep the gloves on. I know how hard you try to retain that veneer of civility when you want to just tell me to “shut the honk up” (oh, wait, you did that). BTW, I don’t know about your church’s take on sin, but the church I decided not to be a part of anymore (because they said stuff I couldn’t agree with on subjects such as abortion) seem to think that intent is a major part of “sinning”. So, y’know saying “shut the honk up” instead of what you were thinking–you still get that big ol’ black mark right next to your name.

I think you’re a fraud, Ned Williams. I think you’re a guy who’s out to prove that he’s smarter and more moral than the people you disagree with. How sad.

Just a blog reader who has been following unintentionally this back and forth for days. Who are you two guys, what are your blogs, and why do you hate each other? Or is this a game? Just trying to figure it out.

Well, seeing as I’m the Conservative Political Co-Editor, that’s my role. And it’s part of the deal that posts here be original. (But feel free to visit my blog, dc).

The rest of your accusations and personal attacks, I’ll just put ‘em on the list, democommie.

Yes, you are particularly annoying democommie and I’m struggling with an indifference/hate relationship with you. Good for me, I’m sure you’ll point out that and future sins for me.

Oh, and you only raise my stock by being incapable of ignoring my posts.

fke,
If you click on my name, you’ll find my blog.

fke:

Ned Williams is the Conservative Political Co-editor or MCB. Had I known this previously, I would have been considerably more deferential and servile in my comments about his stupiditiy and arrogance in assuming that his opinions carry the weight of fact.

I do not hate him, I despise his politics and his pseudo christianity. Like so many other “christians” who rail against socialism and say racism is a leftwing political construct he seems to know all of the words but none of the meaning of the bible on which his belief system is based.

Why waste hate on a guy like Ned Williams when there are so many folks who are even more deserving. No, I don’t hate him, that would diminish me. I think he’s a self-aggrandizing bozo and someone who is much more convinced of his intellectual and moral superiority and than I am.

He’s very clever, that Ned Williams, but, then again, so is his pretendsident, George W. Bush. Clever, however, is nothing like genuinely intellectual and they both share the delusion that it is. Also, being clever is no substitute for being wise.

I don’t have a blog. I am somewhat tech averse and I think it’s fairly obvious to most people who read my comments that I am whatever the opposite of Ned Williams might be.

Ned Williams:

So refreshing to get something like an honest answer from you.

Go to your blog? Oh, I doubt that will happen anytime soon, Ned Williams.

Are you posting here as much as you do, so that you can boost traffic on your blog? Is that it, Ned Williamsn, that not very many people come over to your blog? I will most certainly be one of those. I can’t imagine that there would be any reason for me to engage you outside of this blog.

I don’t know whether it’s out of politeness or a sense of awe (although I sorta doubt the latter) that other people don’t deconstruct your “arguments” on this blog. Your “arguments” (which are nothing original, btw, nothing original) are simply opinion based screeds. So what better way to address them than with other opinion based screeds? Your response to anyone that doesn’t agree with you is generally that they are at best ignorant and at worst, like me, uncivilized.

Dream on, Ned Willams. Since you’re the Political Co-editor, I assume there’s another Political Co-editor. Or is that you mean you are a Co-editor who focuses (very narrowly) on right wing politics? Wait, I think I know the answer, but go ahead and take a whack at it.