You wanna meet the REAL Rev. Wright ???
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 01:30
VIEWED: 12781
PAGE 6 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You spend as much if not more time here then I do, I'm pretty sure.
You missed the effing point, you ugly minded jackass. I don't consider the RWED to be a scum trap. You do. Your blanket contempt for those who disagree with you blinds you beyond reach of even the simplest irony from me.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh, OK.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No I didn’t miss that point either, but you however, have a knack for hypocrisy. First you dismiss the racism of one man because he supports a candidate you sympathize with while condemning another man who doesn’t support that candidate. And now you make personal attacks against me, while accusing me of showing contempt for those who disagree with me. When in fact, I have no contempt at all for you, other then your personal attacks of me.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You spend as much if not more time here then I do, I'm pretty sure.
You missed the effing point, you ugly minded jackass. I don't consider the RWED to be a scum trap. You do. Your blanket contempt for those who disagree with you blinds you beyond reach of even the simplest irony from me.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Incorrect and a dismal summation of my post. Not surprising.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First you dismiss the racism of one man because he supports a candidate you sympathize with while condemning another man who doesn’t support that candidate.
Quote:I certainly don't need you to admit your contempt for me as an individual when you made your contempt for everyone who takes the RWED seriously plain in your "scum trap" post, claiming that the purpose of the RWED was to keep people whom you habitually disagree with and disapprove of (Signy, Frem, etc.--aka: the scum) from "polluting" the rest of the forum. My contempt for you is not hypocritical, it is open and direct, and to my mind, well earned.
And now you make personal attacks against me, while accusing me of showing contempt for those who disagree with me. When in fact, I have no contempt at all for you, other then your personal attacks of me.
For me, discussions with you are the scum of this board and so I tend to avoid them. I've intended to make my feelings clear since you posted your ugly disrespect for the rest of us, but I've had better things to do.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you want to despise people who don’t share your opinions, consider you feelings known and acknowledged.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
For me, discussions with you are the scum of this board and so I tend to avoid them. I've intended to make my feelings clear since you posted your ugly disrespect for the rest of us, but I've had better things to do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to the original question You wanna meet the REAL Rev. Wright ??? my answer is NO. First of all, Auraptor doens't even focus on Wright but on another person, and secondly, I don't think meeting someone three times removed from a candidate gives me any insight into that candidate, just as meeting Prescott Bush would necessarily give me any insight into GW Bush.
So Auraptor is- as usual- creating FUD. Let's get back to the real issues instead of focusing on crappy toilet-paper, OK?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I tend to agree, but I don’t think it’s insignificant that Obama attended a church for 20 years run by a Reverend who obviously has opinions that are completely unacceptable, as far as I’m concerned, for an American President. And I think it’s perfectly within reason for those people who may be interested in voting for Obama to carefully consider whether they are comfortable with their assessment of how significant this is.
Originally posted by SignyM:
...I don't think meeting someone three times removed from a candidate gives me any insight into that candidate, just as meeting Prescott Bush would necessarily give me any insight into GW Bush.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, let me put it this way: Would you look closely at a candidates spouse? Parents? Former employers? Contributors? Staff members? Lobbyists?
I think I could make a case that any candidate spends at least as much time with these family members and associates as they do with a minister, and that these contacts are at least as likely to influence a candidate's thinking if not more so. I mean, hell, I attended a church for 20 year with the stupidest Polish priest ever. Is that gonna stick to my shoe for the rest of my life?
If you're not going to look in detail at the entire context of a candidate's associations, then why focus on this one person? I think it just panders to a secret paranioa that whites have about a "black agenda". And, like those who are STILL paranoid about Saddam's "WMD" (HA!) there is no way to lay to rest anyone's paranoia about it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I certainly don't need you to admit your contempt for me as an individual when you made your contempt for everyone who takes the RWED seriously plain in your "scum trap" post, claiming that the purpose of the RWED was to keep people whom you habitually disagree with and disapprove of (Signy, Frem, etc.--aka: the scum) from "polluting" the rest of the forum. My contempt for you is not hypocritical, it is open and direct, and to my mind, well earned.
For me, discussions with you are the scum of this board and so I tend to avoid them. I've intended to make my feelings clear since you posted your ugly disrespect for the rest of us, but I've had better things to do.
How about looking at this from another angle. I remember the "scum trap" analogy and thought it quite apropos. The whole reason RWED was initialy formed was to keep discussions such as this from the regular board. A point that I thought Finn made quite clear. We all can wax poetic about our shared interest, Firefly, but things can get quite heated when discussin politics and the like. I've often found it interesting that such diametrically opposite individuals could find themselves enamoured of the same show, but I digress.
Instead of scaring off potential recruits at the main board, our crap finging sessions were sent to RWED where the inquisitive can go if so inclined. I believe it was more the tone and subject of these discussions, not the discussers themselves which are the "scum" that requires "trapping".
But hey, far be it for me to put words in Finn's mouth. If he actually meant to call people scum than I guess that is his right as well. Heard much worse insults in these parts than that though, much worse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, let me put it this way: Would you look closely at a candidates spouse? Parents? Former employers? Contributors? Staff members? Lobbyists?
I think I could make a case that any candidate spends at least as much time with these family members and associates as they do with a minister, and that these contacts are at least as likely to influence a candidate's thinking if not more so. I mean, hell, I attended a church for 20 year with the stupidest Polish priest ever. Is that gonna stick to my shoe for the rest of my life?
If you're not going to look in detail at the entire context of a candidate's associations, then why focus on this one person? I think it just panders to a secret paranioa that whites have about a "black agenda". And, like those who are STILL paranoid about Saddam's "WMD" (HA!) there is no way to lay to rest anyone's paranoia about it.
Because unlike you, me, and Joe Blow, Rev. Wright has an audience. This seemed to make a difference when we were discussing Don Imus, so why not now?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME