This ordinary boy [Obama] just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally."
Racism. Alive and well in the heart of Obama's spiritual mentor.
24 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It sounds as if in context Wright was talking about the changes from "this ordinary black boy" - meaning literally, an ordinary black boy - grew up to be this powerful leader and quite likely our next president.
Sounds like a contextual thing.
Besides, I would hope you'd recognize the difference (again, contextually) between a older mentor and black man referring to another younger black man as a boy and a white man using the same language.
Context matters.
So far after one (that's right one) day of the gop convention we have:
123 felony arrests with a significant number of those arrested refusing to identify themselves (I was always told that you must identify yourself when stopped/arrested) to the police/court system. (not to mention a significant number of gross misdemeanors)
Windows broken in downtown St. Paul
Car tires slashed (police and media)
"anarchists" arrested in possion of the following; nails (to throw in front of vehicles, buckets of urine, and the makings of cocktails (molotov that is)
the "president" of the "hip hop congress" responding to the above window damage sating "it's just a brick"
reports that the anti war demonstrators response to counter demonstrators using language that was vile and hateful.
If I may say, it's bad enough here with our homegrown liberals (Al Franken) please stop sending us yours.
Y'all must be so proud.
This might have gotten a little more national play except most of the vultures sorry journalists went to the gulf to see the cat 5, no 4, no 3, no 2 hurricane miss New Orleans.
Sorry this is off topic for this post feel free to move/remove it if you want.
Truth is, actually, I AM prouder of the fringe of my party speaking their piece and being willing to go to jail for it than I am the lies the mainstream of the Republican Party routinely tells to the cameras, the rank-and-file and the American people in general.
I had some respect for Sen. Fred Thompson until just now, when he looked to the delegates, and the cameras, and LIED about what Obama said was "above my pay grade."
Thompson, it turns out, is as big a loser as every other Republican office holder I have ever, ever known.
And I'm sure *you're* proud.
I think I'll go puke now.
"And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."
I don't believe this qualifies as a lie, particularly because Obama has so consistently voted against protecting, not only the unborn, but newborn survivors of abortion. But if ER thinks this sentence was reprehensible, surely he also thinks the same of Obama's new ad, which claims that a President McCain would "make abortion illegal."
That ad's dishonesty will prompt ER to vomit, right?
If Roe is overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal at the Federal level. It just returns rights to the states.
So you'll be able to go to California, NY, Massachusetts, or any number of liberal states to have your children crushed and dismembered. It's your choice!
Yes, the pro-aborts will wail about how the poor don't have the access to kill their unborn children like the rich do, but I'm sure they can set up a charity with their own $$ to fund travel costs.
"And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."
I don't believe this qualifies as a lie"
THEN, Bubba, YOU are a liar, or an idiot. The question asked was "When does life begin?" And THAT is above his pay grade as POTUS.
I say it begins at conception. The difference is I believe in giving the mother, a living, breathing, grown-up human being, more rights.
Fred Thompson did NOT actually say that Obama said, "the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade." What Thompson said is not a lie.
By writing that Fred "LIED about what Obama said was 'above my pay grade,'" you are almost certainly guilty of exactly what you're accusing him of -- namely, willful dishonesty.
It is not the most precise formulation for a convention speech, and can thus be criticized for its lack of precision in attacking both Obama's evasive answer regarding when life begins and his very clear record regarding even the sanctity of those infants who survive abortions and are literally born alive. But that doesn't qualify as a lie.
"And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."
The only way this statement could be a lie is if Barack Obama did believe in protecting the unborn and the newly born. He clearly does not.
"I got rid of the personal chef, and I admit, sometimes my kids sure miss her."
That's horrible. She's practically admitting that she's starving her poor children. Clearly, politics is too much for this poor woman and her poor family, and she shouldn't be running for any higher office. She should be made to resign from her current office and arrested for child neglect, and possibly even child abuse.
And believe me, I'm saying this from a depth of compassion and concern that wells up from within me, for that poor yokel family, and I am repulsed by anybody who would dare question my sincerity.
A little contradictory there, eh?
So...you're saying, Dear Rev, that one life is more valuable than another and that one living human-being has the right to murder another living human-being?
Give a leftist a little rope...
And pray for the pigmies!
Maybe he could ask someone who has read an embyrology textbook. It is a scientific fact, not a philosophical debate.
"I say it begins at conception. The difference is I believe in giving the mother, a living, breathing, grown-up human being, more rights."
The right to . . . crush and dismember her unborn child. Just completing the sentence.
I said what I meant.
It's a hellaciously tough call. Y'all call it one way, and I call it another.
And this is incorrect on its face: "It is a scientific fact, not a philosophical debate." It is a philosophical debate about sets of scientific facts, couched in a complicated system of government in a diverse society. That's what it is.
My question concerning that, ER is then why should the government sanction it and tax us to pay for it and all the other things that Obama wants us to do. This issue was not brought on the scene by Republicans, but by liberal justices that the Democrats love to appoint. mom2
Somebody figures out a way for each of us to keep our money for paying for things each of us doesn't approve of, yet still maintain the federal government in general, and I'd be all for it.
On the other hand, a woman DOES have the right to reach between her own legs and murder the child to who she gave life.
Great logic there Reverend Einstein!
Why? If it is because a human being is being murdered, then that would make it a less-than-hellaciously tough call, in my book. You would protect life.
Same thing if it doesn't kill an innocent human being. Not a difficult call at all. Have all the abortions you like.
The psychological situation is challenging, given the pressures the woman may have.
But morally speaking, this issue is very simple.
Yes.
Neil: Morally speaking? Yer right. But we're not talking about morality in a vacuum. We're talking about morality within a free society. Not. Simple. At. All.
Make it less free, and you'll win -- by making a bunch of women slaves to yer view.
Sorry. Very, very complicated.
Yeah. Like we made a whole bunch of Southerners slaves to our views when we outlawed slavery. It's human life here as well. Not make it less free, make it illegal in most cases. Like Southerners, women will make different choices to avoid putting themselves in that situation. The choices will result in fewer conceptions and fewer kids at risk. Women will have more ammo in the "who's more mature" debate that always rages between sexes. It's all good.