Sunday, March 23, 2008

Berlin (like Wright) had reasons for feeling bitter towards America . . . but I won't go into that again since you read my website.
danny | Homepage | 03.22.08 - 5:24 pm | #

I find your comparison of Wright to Berlin somewhat baffling. Are you saying that Jewish grievances against America are stronger and more legitimate than African American grievances against America? I'm Jewish myself, and while there certainly has been an element of anti-semitism in America's history, I don't see any crime committed against American Jews that's on par with the horrors of slavery.

et me clear up a few points.

I never said that I did not read a Wright sermon. If you will check back I said the opposite. I also said whether Wright is divisive and hurtful in his sermons is a closed topic . . . it is closed because Obama conceded the point. Why waste my time debating a point that has been conceded?

Yes I have posted some of my exchanges on my site. I got the idea (maybe reminded of the idea is more accurate) from Yaki. I visited his homepage and I found that he routinely posts discussions that took place on other sites. I thought that was a good idea, so I decided to do the same. Perhaps doing that may save time here. I notice some posters keep asking the same questions and posting the same fallacious arguments. If they would just read my homepage, maybe we would not have to go over ground that has been covered. BTW I have no advertising on my homepage and receive zero dollars from it. I think Yaki's situation is the same.

I agree that Jewish people have been much more successful than whites. I also believe that much of that success stems from Jewish culture. Weber, a sociologist, did a famous study where he concluded that the Protestant culture with its work ethic worked extremely well in promoting success. But, I believe that he concluded that Jewish culture was even better.

In my experience in school, I would say that white students generally perform better than African American students. That is not to say that I haven’t met some extremely bright and gifted African American students. It is like saying that men are generally taller than women. That is not discounting the fact that there are some really tall women and some really short men. Still, men are generally taller. White students generally do better.

There was a discredited professor who published some study that concluded that white people are genetically superior to blacks. I might be tempted to agree, except for one thing. I have had the opportunity to meet a sizable number of black students from Caribbean States. I am speaking of small countries like Jamaica and Dominica. Almost all of these students just beat the crap out of white students (in terms of being academically successful). They beat the crap out of me. They haven’t had preachers like Wright telling them how the odds are stacked against them because they are victims of oppression. No, in their culture, they are expected to perform, and perform they do. They consistently beat white Americans even though they possess the same African genes as African Americans.

I still say that Jewish Americans have as much or more reason to wallow in their victimization as African Americans. If they did, they would (on the whole) be just has impoverished as African Americans. But they don’t. They are motivated by their culture to perform. And that is the difference.

Happy Easter!!!!

Yes I have posted some of my exchanges on my site. I got the idea (maybe reminded of the idea is more accurate) from Yaki. I visited his homepage and I found that he routinely posts discussions that took place on other sites. I thought that was a good idea, so I decided to do the same. Perhaps doing that may save time here. I notice some posters keep asking the same questions and posting the same fallacious arguments. If they would just read my homepage, maybe we would not have to go over ground that has been covered. BTW I have no advertising on my homepage and receive zero dollars from it. I think Yaki's situation is the same.

You're full of shit. The only person I've copied posts from is one fruitcake named Jeremiah. You know,that same guy you said in your initial post that you "didn't know who he was.

And it's what,3 posts? What a bullshitter you are. Anyone can go to your blog,you know. The initial posts on your site are of a conversation you "think" you won with someone,when the simple fact is,they got tired of listening to you echo yourself and left you to wallow in your own ignorance.

And surely someone as well read as you are Danny,can spell someone's name when it's just a few posts ahead of yours. Funny,and sad. That's all you got.
Yakki.PsD | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 6:33 pm | #


I take that back,of the three posts,the second was a c&p of other posters. The first you had a "mock" debate between you and Rocky Anderson.

As if.

Second was a debate between someone and you over Rocky Anderson's debate with Sean Hannity.

Carry water much?

Here,let me help ya. Here's the second post from your blog,from BEFORE you ever stepped foot on Newshounds:

http://thumbsnap.com/v/iG1ys6w5.jpg


So when did you start copying your little diatribes from other websites again? Or do you intend to play the consumate Republitard,and blame it on a liberal?
Yakki.PsD | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 6:38 pm | #


I agree that Jewish people have been much more successful than whites.
danny
-----------

This is a very telling statement. Jewish people ARE white for the most part... not that there's anything wrong with being non-white but being Jewish is a religion, not a race.
Ellen | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 6:42 pm | #


Ellen: Exactly.

The Lemba of Africa carry the gene for the priestly class of Hebrews.

And they are definetly Black.
Yakki.PsD | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 6:48 pm | #


And honestly I suspect that a great many Americans would be offended by your characterization that African Americans are wallowing in their victimization.
Amused | 03.23.08 - 6:23 pm |

------------

Speaking as an African American male, I find that characterization offensive on occasion, but on the whole find it not so much offensive as I find it sad . . .

Sad that those who wish to make that characterization find it easier to do that to than make any attempt to understand or help change any of the conditions or factors that lead to our "victimization."
.
mj | 03.23.08 - 7:51 pm | #


This is a very telling statement. Jewish people ARE white for the most part... not that there's anything wrong with being non-white but being Jewish is a religion, not a race.
Ellen | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 6:42 pm | #

Ellen, the Jews are a people; an ethnic group, just like the Italians or the French. They have their own language, called Hebrew. They have their own culture. Most Israelies are not religious at all. But they are Jews nonetheless. Yes, there is a religion that is called Judiasm, and anyone can join. But that is the exception and not the rule for what defines a Jew.
Fast Eddie | 03.23.08 - 8:10 pm | #


(maybe reminded of the idea is more accurate)

Yakki,

I guess you must have missed the above line from my post. For your benefit, I am putting it in bold. It is true that I did post the debate I had with an Anderson supporter. But if you will notice it has been a long time since I had posted a second time. After going to your site I was inspired to post again. Thought it was a good idea.

Sorry about misspelling your name. When you have it on preview you can't go up to previous posts and I honestly could not remember whether it was one k or two ks. I meant no disrespect. Especially since I now see that it is such a big deal to you, I will never make that mistake again.

I am sorry mj that you took offense about my characterization. I don't think that there are big differences between people. I don't think that there is such a thing as a white person a black person. If you look closely you will see that no one is really white and no one is really black. We are all different shades of pink or brown.

There are, however, cultural differences between people that can be profound. I think I mentioned Weber's famous study where he said that Catholics tend to be less successful than Protestants and Protestants are not quite as success-oriented as Jews. You see, Ellen, I am saying that it is culture that differentiates people and not genetics or race.

Some people get the wrong idea when they look at performance in school. I think whites generally tend to perform better than African Americans and Asians tend to perform better that whites. I don't think I am genetically superior to African American or genetically inferior to Asians.

I honestly believe that African Americans tend to revel in being victims. I see much of this in Wright's preaching. He seems to pound it in people's heads that they are victims . . . they will never get anywhere . . . that black people are still oppressed by whitey . . . the cards are stacked against them. Africans from the Caribbean don't have this attitude. They came over to their countries in chains, but their eyes are not on their past. They have never been told that they can't perform or get ahead, so they tend to outperform white students.

Performance is related to culture and not genetics. Ultimately the problem is not Whitey. If African Americans can just fix the problems in their culture, they will be much more successful. If that offends anyone I am truly sorry, but that is what I believe.
danny | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 8:30 pm | #


danny and Fast Eddie,
As a Jewish person, I find your comments offensive. Please do not post any more on this subject.
Ellen | Homepage | 03.23.08 - 9:06 pm | #


Ellen,

I did not hear you say that my comments about the Jewish people were not true. If you think that, then say that.

Are the Jews not a people, with their own language and culture, just like the French and Italians?

Did they not have their own country destroyed by the Romans 2,000 years ago?

Is it not true that most Jews in Israel are not religious at all?
Fast Eddie | 03.23.08 - 10:21 pm | #


figured I had better put my work here before it becomes deleted. I did make a bonehead mistake in this exchange. I said that Jews are more successful than whites. I had meant to say that Jews are more successful than blacks. I was not trying to deal the Jewish people out of being Caucasians. Not all Jewish people are Caucasian, but most who live in this country are.

I am sure Ellen thinks I am a racist for saying what I said. She is very hypersensitive to what she thinks is racism. I think really there is too much of that BS going on. It is not only that Hannity is a racist, but Ferraro is a racist and if you make a list of people who are called racist because their comments are not considered PC you would have a list a mile long. I am probably now banned from her site. Oh well. If that happens, Iwon't use a sockpuppet to get back in.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Good Post Exchanges

So the rightwing wants to "censor" religious speech if it doesn't meet their test of orthodoxy. But their brand is OK. Wow.
claudo | 03.19.08 - 10:30 am | #
=====

worse than that, they want an American, church-going Christian to denounce his church...It reminds me of another group who wanted people to denounce their religion....what was that group called again? Oh yeah, f'n Nazis.
Wonko the Sane | 03.19.08 - 3:18 pm | #


Wonko the Sane | 03.19.08 - 3:18 pm | #


I dunno, but I know that it mentions in the bible how they will want people to renounce Christ. Pastors are suppose to be representatives of Christ
GrannyStandingforTruth | 03.19.08 - 3:42 pm | #


It reminds me of another group who wanted people to denounce their religion....what was that group called again? Oh yeah, f'n Nazis.
Wonko the Sane

------------------------------------

Actually, the Nazis wanted to replace the Christ of the Christians, who was a Jew (not a black man, as Wright would have it) and the Prince of Peace with the Christ of the Nazis, a prototypical Aryan Superman who hated Jews.

Kind of like Wright and Farrakan, who also routinely disparage the Jews in the name of Christ and Mohamed. My Bible, Granny, speaks of people following false Christs. That seems to fit Farrakan (who says he considers Jesus to be a prophet) Wright and Nazi-influenced psuedo-Christians.

The question is as follows: How much of that hate message did Obama internalize during his 20-year membership in Wright's church? We would all like to think that he absorbed none of it. But no one really knows for sure.
danny | 03.19.08 - 6:40 pm | #


The question is as follows: How much of that hate message did Obama internalize during his 20-year membership in Wright's church? We would all like to think that he absorbed none of it. But no one really knows for sure.
danny | 03.19.08 - 6:40 pm |


Hm, "no one really knows for sure."

Maybe no one should actually LISTEN to Obama's speech - then no one could actually find out.

.
mj | 03.19.08 - 6:59 pm | #


MJ,

Politicians always reveal everything that is in their heart in their political speeches. Right?

Well, I guess in Utopia that does always happen.
danny | 03.19.08 - 7:16 pm | #


The day Frank Luntz behaves neutral is the day I firmly believe hell has frozen over.

People like Hannity and Luntz won't ever understand what Obama talked about. They make too much money off of racism and the advertising dollars of companies that pander to the bigot market. Just look at some of these comments on here.
If you want to link fmr. Pastor White to Obama, then you by extension must link the ENTIRE Christian fundamentalist movement to McCain, since he actively courted their support.

And conservative whites wonder why they get called 'racist' all the time. If you don't think the term 'racist' is appropriate for such views, then ok then, let's make newer terms. How about the more PC term 'dumber than dogsh*t'? Or 'clueless American'? Or let's just say you all suffer from 'Moron Syndrome'.
AgentS | 03.19.08 - 8:21 pm | #


you want to link fmr. Pastor White to Obama, then you by extension must link the ENTIRE Christian fundamentalist movement to McCain, since he actively courted their support.
AgentS
______________________________________

No, your inference does not logically follow your premise. In the first place you are wrong because McCain has in times past been very critical of the religious right . . . probably the most critical of any of the Republican contenders. McCain was certainly not the first choice of the fundamentalist movement. Yes, at this point, he would really like to have their votes. When you are running for President, you would like to have the votes of as many people as possible. That is the name of the game. McCain has made it clear that he does not support all of the views of everyone who supports him for President . . . particularly those of the religious right.

Secondly, you are wrong because your logic is based on a false analogy. If Obama would have simply solicited Wright for his support (having no other relationship with him), no one would raise an eyebrow. Everyone expects Obama to solicit African American preachers for support. He would be a fool if he didn't.

What makes Wright's case different is that Obama supported Wright and his ministry by his prayers. presence, gifts, and services uncritically for twenty years. That is in no way true for McCain and any fundamentalist preacher.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Your analogy is patently false; therefore your conclusion is false.
danny | 03.19.08 - 9:35 pm | #


What makes Wright's case different is that Obama supported Wright and his ministry by his prayers. presence, gifts, and services uncritically for twenty years. That is in no way true for McCain and any fundamentalist preacher
-------------------''

so did many catholics for decades.

Just because he says things doesnt mean Obabam believed them all. I went to catholic school for 10 years total I dont believe in the devil I dont believe in limbo. I dont believe MANY things. But there are parts I DO believe.

I grew up living with a bigot my whole childhood. I turned out exactly the opposite.

Guilt by associations is a weak argument ans is being used because there isnt anything else to attack him with. And every single person on Fox constantly attacking Obama shows what a fucking propaganda tool they are.
hoode | 03.19.08 - 11:22 pm | #


Guilt by associations is a weak argument
hoode
--------------------------------------

Ah but no one is talking about guilt by association. Barak is is guilty by participation.

When a responsible adult (not a child as you were when you were attending a Catholic School) is a willing, active, financially contributing member of an organization, that person is responsible for what the organization says and does.

Obama says that the power of words should not marginalized or be dismissed as being "just words"; rather they are a potent force for good or evil. He admits words spoken in his name of his church were hurtful psychologically and spiritually and that they were harmful to society because they were divisive. As an adult, financially-contributing, active member of that church he actively helped to enable those destructive words to be spoken. That's why Obama is accountable . . . and guilty.
danny | 03.20.08 - 3:45 am | #


When a responsible adult (not a child as you were when you were attending a Catholic School) is a willing, active, financially contributing member of an organization, that person is responsible for what the organization says and does.
=================


ahhhhh then all parishioners at catholic churches and tithe are guilt of supporting pedophiles. I get it.
hoode | 03.20.08 - 6:07 am | #


This is pretty fascinating to watch. Danny is using logic and rationality to argue with a bunch of angry liberals. Having nothing to say about this arguments, they simply spin their heads around, spew bile at him and utter different variations of "RACIST!" "SEXIST!" "HOMOPHOBE!"

W.
Will | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:15 am | #


This is a message to my white brothers and sisters. Though I am a black man we are still brothers an sisters in Christ, because we all came from the same parents. I ask you to pay attention not to the anger of the supporters of Mr. Obama, but to pay attention to his temperament and character. We see a none violent peaceful person who has never raised his temper even when the worst criticisms are thrown at him. We see him handling criticisms with the ought most respect, even better than John McCain who lost his temper when tested.

Fox news is trying hard to frighten white voters, by cherry picking people who represent violent views of the race issue, where as CNN brings about a more moderate civil discussions. Fox is trying very hard to make Mr. Obama deny his pastor, for they know this would cause him to lose half the black vote, and it would move to Hillary. Mr. Obama is not stupid, and they’re not going to get him to commit political suicide. A number of the things you see being done by fox are politically motivated.

Mr. Obama will be the one in the white house making decisions and not his voters. Mr. Obama also understands the politics of black people, and knows that a white mother would raise questions in the black community as to whether he is black enough. To earn the black vote you must show you can identify with the black community, but I can assure you he would be a president for all Americans.

Mr. Obama has many white democratic leaders who support him and also in the state of Wisconsin. The black vote of the democratic party is said to be the loyal vote that will never leave the party irrespective of what happens. It is important that he carries this vote in high numbers. Many experts say they have never seen a leader that can inspire people so much since the time of Martin Luther King. This is a man who has the words to bring young an old, black an white together, and calm the hostility. I urge you to not let that once in a life time opportunity go away.
Richard | 03.20.08 - 2:51 pm | #


ahhhhh then all parishioners at catholic churches and tithe are guilt of supporting pedophiles. I get it.
hoode
----------------------------------
Yes, amost all adult parishioners who heard (or heard of) his or her priest preaching the virtues of pedophilia and who knew that his or her priest was practicing the same is guilty. I agree.
danny | 03.20.08 - 3:13 pm | #


Richard,

I have never in my life voted for a Democrat to be president of the United States, nor has any member of my family.

The only Democratic Prez who I think was worth a damn during the last century was Harry Truman.

It was unlikely that I would have voted for Obama, even before the flap came up. I have been happy that many white voters have transcended race and have voted for a black candidate. I did tell a African American friend that I would vote for Obama if my friend could show me that Obama would lower my taxes and shrink the size of government. My friend has not answered my challenge.

I once told a Republican who was soliciting money from me that Bush should pick Colin Powell as running mate. Given a choice between McCain and JC Watts, I would vote for Watts (who is also a brother in Christ) in a heartbeat. He probably won't, but I would love for McCain to pick Watts as his running mate.

As a white man, I am ready, willing, and able to vote for a black man to be President. I would love to vote for an African American to be President. It just has to be right African American candidate.
danny | 03.20.08 - 3:55 pm | #


Politicians always reveal everything that is in their heart in their political speeches. Right?

danny | 03.19.08 - 7:16 pm |

--------------

Well, sometimes yes, they do:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, Dec. 19, 2000

. . . they may do so quite unintentionally, but they do.

.
mj | 03.20.08 - 10:52 pm | #


danny | 03.20.08 - 3:13 pm |

And - here we are back to the point. If you wish to judge Obama by the company he keeps, specifically by the words of a minister he knows, then its only fair to judge McCain by the same criteria . . .
mj | 03.20.08 - 10:56 pm | #


MJ,

Note Bush did not say that things would be better; he said things would be easier. I'll bet a lot of Presidents have felt like that. If they just did not have to go through Congress; If they could just do what they wanted to do without all the red tape and headaches, things would be easier.

Obama said (at least in the beginning of the controversy) that he listened to a minister for twenty years without realizing that he ever said anything controversial or destructive. You did believe him on that didn't you?

We haven't known Obama for very long; he has only recently burst onto the national political scene. There is a heck of a lot that I don't know (and I daresay the majority of the American people don't know) about the man. Of course, it is doubly hard to gauge the character of a man from speeches (written with help) read from a teleprompter.

Regarding you last point, I refer you to my words from an earlier post:

No, your inference does not logically follow your premise. In the first place you are wrong because McCain has in times past been very critical of the religious right . . . probably the most critical of any of the Republican contenders. McCain was certainly not the first choice of the fundamentalist movement. Yes, at this point, he would really like to have their votes. When you are running for President, you would like to have the votes of as many people as possible. That is the name of the game. McCain has made it clear that he does not support all of the views of everyone who supports him for President . . . particularly those of the religious right.

Secondly, you are wrong because your logic is based on a false analogy. If Obama would have simply solicited Wright for his support (having no other relationship with him), no one would raise an eyebrow. Everyone expects Obama to solicit African American preachers for support. He would be a fool if he didn't.

What makes Wright's case different is that Obama supported Wright and his ministry by his prayers. presence, gifts, and services uncritically for twenty years. That is in no way true for McCain and any fundamentalist preacher.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Your analogy is patently false; therefore your conclusion is false.


I haven't changed my mind on this. I vehemently disagree with you. You are drawing a false analogy and using two different standards of measure. And no, IT IS NOT FAIR.

Ellen,

Before you rejoice too wildly Ellen, does this not prove what I have been saying . . . that you have been repeatedly inaccurate concerning Hannity's relationship to Turner? You have been using present tense to describe the relationship, and now there is no question that is not true. Your description of Hannity might have been more defensible if you had said, "Hannity, who once had a friendship with a White Supremacist." It's probably still not fair and balanced, but it would at least be a statement you could defend. I know it doesn't sound as flashy or as incriminating as what you actually say . . . but it would be more accurate.

BTW: Many posters on this site have been carping about Barak's being subject to guilt by association. I dispute that. However, linking Hannity to Turner really is guilt by association. Had Barak severed his relationship with his church any time even within the last ten years (as Oprah did) I would now be praising Barak for his good judgment; rather than condemning him.

danny | 03.20.08 - 4:17 am | #

Yeah right!
GrannyStandingforTruth | 03.20.08 - 4:25 am | #


Yeah right!
GrannyStandingforTruth | 03.20.08 - 4:25 am | #

Ignore it Granny. He'll argue about the definition of "is",just to get bullshit stirred up.
Yakki.PsD | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 4:33 am | #

Ignore it Granny. He'll argue about the definition of "is",just to get bullshit stirred up.
Yakki.PsD
_________________________________


So Yakki, in your universe it would be quite OK to say "Robert Byrd, a democratic senator who is a member of the Klu Klux Klan." Were anyone to complain that the statement is not accurate, you would say that they are just splitting hairs over the definition of is. "Is" or "was" are all the same to you.

To coin a Granny phrase,"yeah, right."

You see there is nothing wrong with MY reading comprehension. I KNOW the difference between present and past tense. It is wrong to use present tense language (as Ellen has been doing) to describe Sean's relationship to Hal. In the present, Sean has no sympathy for Hal. In the present, Hal is banned for life from Sean's program. It has not always been that way, but it is now, and it has been that way for some time.

To her credit Ellen more accurately describes Hal and Sean's relationship in this article than she has described it in a long time, when she uses the language, "PAST association." Let's see if she continues to use that language. If she does, my criticism of her on this point will diminish and probably disappear entirely.

If she goes back to her previous language . . . she has no platform on which to denounce anyone else for making inaccurate statements or "smearing." To paraphrase a religious instructor that Obama and Wright say they admire, Ellen should first get the log out of her own eye before she tries to remove the spec from someone else's eye.

Has Hannity specifically said he banned Turner?
Crash Chloride
-------------------------------
Yes Sean specifically said that on the video and Ellen accurately reported that Sean said he had banned Turner in her article. The fact that Hal has been banned it also supported by the article from which Ellen quoted at length.

gain,what hate speech?

Show where Wright was wrong Danny. We can end it there if you wish. Just show where he was wrong.

And don't trot out the aids nonsense. That would be easy.

Let's roll this thing brotha.
Yakki.PsD | Homepage | 03.18.08 - 9:51 pm | #


So you say tell me where he was wrong, but don't tell me where he was clearly wrong that would be too easy?

Irving Berlin had as much or more reasons to have hard feelings toward America. He grew up dirt poor in New York, and he was from a despised race. So despised that even Wright and Farrakan have had bad things to say about that ethnic group. When Berlin became famous he married a rich heiress who was knocked off the social registry (by Americans) because she married a Jew. Berlin was never called the n word but he was called a Christ Killer by Americans and he was called some other derogatory names for Jews that I won't mention. His sister-in-law, an American, had a Nazi boyfriend. She was fond of throwing her diamond jeweled swastika ring in his face. The symbol of a hate group having many Americam members and sympathizers . . . a hate group that was killing Berlin's kinsmen by the millions.

Yet, Berlin from the heart Penned the words "God Bless America" because he loved this country. Maybe he had reasons not to but he loved it anyway.

Conversely, Wright told his congregation to sing "God Damn America" because he hates this country. You may say he has reasons to despise this country, and so he does despise it. If you can't see that this is hate speech, then I can't help you no matter how many examples I might give.
danny | 03.19.08 - 12:08 am | #


LMAO at the libs.
jr | 03.19.08 - 8:14 pm | #