| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2008/3/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:49530 Activity:high |
3/21 Krauthhammer on Obama's speech
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290899211643217
\_ Does Krauthammer still call them Freedom Fries? When is he going
to apologize for the Iraq War? The guy is a fool.
\_ So, in other words, he's right and you have no answer to any
of his points? Thanks.
\_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendatious
\_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendacious
and has shown repeated bad judgement. Why would anyone
waste their time bothering to untangle what a proven
fool is blubbering on about?
\_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
\_ I don't waste my time reading Ann Coulter's "opinions"
either. Some people have worthwhile things to say,
this guy has proven, to me at least, that he does not.
\- you remember that reporter in manhunter/red dragon?
think krauthammer.
\_ That's nice. If you don't want to read something
that is fine. However, that puts you in a poor
position to comment on the article. Your opinion
of the writer's previous statements does not create
the logical grounds for outright dismissing a later
statement. -!pp (and no, like you I haven't read
it either, but unlike you I am not going to comment
on something I haven't read)
\_ I didn't comment on his article. I dismissed
him as a fool.
\_ Exactly. You gave a zero-content knee-jerk
response to seeing his name. Why bother?
Is that really going to convince anyone of
anything or just venting? I see no reason
to post content-free rants. Perhaps you can
explain the value of your original post?
\_ It is pretty funny that a guy who defends
Krauthammer would complain about a content
free rant.
\_ It's even funnier that a guy who
complains about Krauthammer would engage
so much in content free rants. -!pp
\_ Show me even one column of his that is
not: 1) tendentious 2) partisan and
3) wrong and I will reconsider my
POV. The truth is, I have read over
20 of his columns and not even one of
them was worth the time I spent.
them was worth the time I spent. And
btw, saying "Krauthammer was wrong
about Iraq and I will not consider his
opinion until he recants" is hardly
comment free. Perhaps you don't agree
with the comment, but it is certainly
not comment-free.
\_ I'm at no point defending Krauthammer.
I made it quite clear I didn't read the
article and it doesn't matter at all what
the article says since you didn't read it
either. You are intellectually dishonest
or possibly just mentally deficient.
Either way you have still failed to make
a point or even attempt to. -pp
\_ No, I made my point just fine, you just
refuse to admit it: some people aren't
worth wasting your time considering.
Do you remember when the motd was
covered with Freeper trolls? I used
to post links to Prof. Thomas'
excellent blog, The Economist's Voice,
excellent blog, The Economist's View,
until some of the Motd Conservatives
complained about the tone of the
comments section. Krauthammer is
far worse.
worse.
\_ You didn't make a point. A point
might have been convincing. You
expressed a content-free opinion.
There is nothing wrong with that.
It just isn't a point. Don't
confuse your opinion with fact.
\_ My reply was deleted, so here's the
rehashed version: You posted your
opinion. Yay. I'm happy for you.
It still isn't a fact and your
opinion is not something that can
be falsified. You don't like him.
Ok. As far as freepers go, if you
were the one posting freeper links,
I was the one saying we don't need
that here. There's no reason at
all to post a freeper link when all
we're getting is freeper hate plus
a link to the original article.
Just post the original link without
the hate. I also don't see a need
for dailykos hate either, just so
you understand I'm even handed with
my hate-link complaints.
\_ The answer to his question (why he stayed in the church) is pretty
obvious. A church is primarily about religion and faith. Politics
are secondary. A preacher expressing an opinion he doesn't agree
with isn't a crime that reflects on him or his judgement. Unless
you say he should have left because, cynically, it might be used
against him for political muckraking and fearmongering purposess.
\_ A preacher saying the things Wright said should have no
congregation.
\_ Well, I'd say any preacher should have no congregation since
religion is all a giant pile of bullshit. But go figure: it
seems to help them. You aren't in that church, you don't
know what pros there might be to counter these supposed cons.
\_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
\_ There *is no pro* that can counter these cons. And what do
you mean by 'supposed'?
\_ You know everything, why don't you figure it out?
\_ You know, this kind of shit is amazing to read, given how much
shit famous ring-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
shit famous right-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
\_ Well, I guess to me the thing is that Obama explicitly and
publically rejects the controversial statements at hand. The
only real controversy with him then is his church membership
and apparent friendship with this man. I don't recall the
right wing politicians rejecting wacky religious right stuff.
Actually they (Bush etc) invoke it in public policy matters.
\_ Slightly off-topic, but if you take a closer look at Wright's
philosophy, he's far more of a conservative than a liberal.
\_ Hey, I think he is a kook, but I think that about most
religious people, so I think my opinion doesn't really matter
religious people, so my opinion doesn't really matter
here. What is going on, imho, is that religious conservatives
are waking up to the fact that there are other strains of
Christian faith and it kind of freaks them out. |
| 5/17 |
|
| www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290899211643217 CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. But the more important question is: which "controversial" remarks? Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the US government invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them? Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction. His defense rests on two central propositions: moral equivalence, and white guilt. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others? "I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother." Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus' time. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred? Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend? |