Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
It would be an honest presentation of the facts if you didn't bring it up constantly as an intended slur on Obama.
|
How does the offensiveness (slur) of a comment negate the truthfulness of said comment; your statement is fallacious and outright silly.
Quote:
|
Since there is nothing wrong with him belonging (or formerly belonging) to a "racialist" church, the only way in which it can work as a slur on Obama is if the intent is to confuse the word with a similar word, "racist," which would indeed be alarming.
|
This is assuming that everyone shares your view of right and "wrong" which would be a megalomaniacal assumption to make on your part...
Quote:
|
As for your suggestion about Obama "ruling over a white majority population," and concerns over his "racialist" background for that reason, a person would have to share your own racist views in order to find that any more of a problem than having a member of an evangelical church doing the same. Personally, I have more in common religiously with Obama than I did with Jimmy Carter, although admittedly that's not saying a lot.
|
So any white person who is concerned about being ruled by a black man who was an active member of a black racialist church must be a racist himself...cute.
Quote:
|
If you want me to believe that you're honestly presenting the facts, stop using the word "racialist" in that context.
|
So you will believe me to be honest if I stop using appropriate honest language, terminology and titles in my accurate critiques of left-leaning blacks?
Quote:
|
Say instead that Obama belonged to a black Christian church; since all black churches are "racialist" you will imply the same meaning without the linguistic confusion.
|
This is a hypothetical and a hypothetical based on a sweeping generalisation.
Quote:
|
If the confusion is, as I believe, your deliberate intent, you won't do this; if not, you won't mind. Ball's in your court.
|
The more I deal with American leftists; the more I realise your nation is truly doomed.
Quote:
|
That's not something wrong with Rev. Wright, it's merely a case where Rev. Wright is wrong. Since, if the government had done that, it would be very much in character and similar to other things that it has done in the past, there is nothing particularly wrong with his jumping to that conclusion. He's incorrect, but it's an understandable mistake.
|
As usual your arguments are most illogical; there is nothing particularly wrong about jumping to an incorrect conclusion? Do you understand how ridiculous your argument is here?