Is Rev. Wright ever going to shut up?

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

I'm glad Wayne, our host supports freedom of hate speech that Snowman offers so often. Thanks!

So when Snowman says something, it is hate, but whe wright says much worse, it isn't hate, but OK

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by URY914

Sherwood,

I used quotation marks because I was quoting the ARTICLE that I provided a link to. I used the q-marks to indicate that the statements are not mine. The last paragraph is mine and no q-marks are used. You seem pretty hung up on my form. BTW "enlighten" me on why youd use a set of q-marks at the end of your post?

This entire forum is about "personel opinions". You better get used to it.

Paul

Paul,
You started your post with a quote as if what followed was attributed to FoxNews. The link you posted was sufficient to know the source. However, none of the words you "quoted" were in the FoxNews article nor in Wright's transcript, just your own. You don't see that or don't care? The thread you started developed and grew. People who took your quotes for face value assumed it came directly from Wright. Wrong (sort of a pun).

You call it your "personal opinion". So be it. From now on, I'll be sure to understand quotes in your posts as your personal thoughts. I'd prefer you be more credible than that.

You asked why I ended my post with an end quote. For effect, basically. Same reason why I asked why you used a beginning quote in your post. But since you asked, did you think I was quoting someone on the internet?

Sherwood

[kstar]

Unless the Fox article referenced by Paul was modified since he posted the thread starter here, which is very possible and done frequently by the media, Paul's quoted text is not exactly like the referenced article, but it is materially the same.

Paul quoted:

"The Rev. Jeremiah Wright taunted a gathering of journalists Monday in Washington, D.C., calling their coverage of his speeches an attack on the black church, while defending his claim that the U.S. was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Wright, the controversial former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, took dead aim at the U.S. government Monday — saying American soldiers in Iraq have died “over a lie” and calling the war “unjust” — as he called for reconciliation and understanding between blacks and whites."

The first two paragraphs from the referenced link ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-takes-his-message-directly-to-the-media/ ) are, IMO, materially similar to Paul's quote:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright grabbed the spotlight for the fourth day in a row Monday with a taunting and mocking speech that once again cast a shadow on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Wright, the former pastor of the Chicago church where Obama is a member, provoked and chided a group of journalists gathered in Washington on Monday during remarks and a question-answer session at the National Press Club.

FWIW, I did notice that the last paragraph of Paul's post lacked quotes and was his own words:

He also spoke at the NAACP fund raiser over the weekend. The guy is now a media star and will not go away. He is a sideshow to the race and B.O. is the guy that set him up. I think this only comes off as negative. He can explain all day long and he is only digging a deeper hole for himself and B.O.

Looks like Fox just updated the original story.

I don't understand what the big deal is, but I have been known to miss obvious stuff before.

[URY914]

Sherwood,
the first two quoted paragraphs were directly from the article in the link. I just looked at the link and the article has been changed and my quoted paragraphs are not there. You can believe me or not, I don't care. You are really making a big deal out of my quotes. Here is another quote for you.

"Get over it"

[kstar]

I agree.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by hardflex

Strange you should say that, he worked for Nixon's campaign in 1972. He was articulate and a huge fund raiser for him.

Is Nixon running? Did they dig him up. Please allow me to summarize the comments of you & all the other lefties out here:
Whaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Unless the Fox article referenced by Paul was modified since he posted the thread starter here, which is very possible and done frequently by the media, Paul's quoted text is not exactly like the referenced article, but it is materially the same.

Paul quoted:



The first two paragraphs from the referenced link ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-takes-his-message-directly-to-the-media/ ) are, IMO, materially similar to Paul's quote:



FWIW, I did notice that the last paragraph of Paul's post lacked quotes and was his own words:



Looks like Fox just updated the original story.

I don't understand what the big deal is, but I have been known to miss obvious stuff before.

These left wing dead enders have gone so long without a point that desperation is setting in.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Mule

So Sherwood, are you taking the position of defending the good rev and his racist, anti-American remarks? If you are actually being foolish enough to do that, I will club you like a baby seal with the hatred & venom that spews from that mans mouth. Ya' might want to re-think that.

Speaking of hatred and venom...can you try to avoid going down the road of threats like that? Let's try to keep if somewhat out of the gutter.

btw nice channeling of Mulholland with the crying baby graphic...

[Mule]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Speaking of hatred and venom...can you try to avoid going down the road of threats like that? Let's try to keep if somewhat out of the gutter.

btw nice channeling of Mulholland with the crying baby graphic...

Somehow I'm not surprised that you class that as venom & hatred. Let me take this time to formally apologize to any and all that may have been offended by or actually perceived a threat of real violence. My intent was to emphatically make the point that rev Wright and his racist hate filled statements are indefensible. Additionally my intent was to imply that I consider rev Wright a pariah to America anv that I would vigorously take issue with any attempt to defend him or his statements. At no time did I actually consider "clubbing" any one or any seal. The statement was meant metaphorically. No left wingers or baby seals were harmed in the making of either post.

Ya' gotta admit, the crying baby has never been more appropriate than now.

[URY914]

I heard several callers on talk radio today saying the the Obama/Wright dug-a-war has been a complete set up by the Obama camp. I think this whole thing has been too much for someone to set up and have it play out and work as someone would want it to. Too many things could go wrong and blow up.
Way too risky to be a set up.

Some folks think that everything that happens is a set up by someone.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Mule

...Let me take this time to formally apologize to any and all that may have been offended by or actually perceived a threat of real violence. .

...You mean the baby seals? I mean come on, the baby seals would have a more defensible position than those who would support “Reverend” Wrights' hate-for-profit.

[Mule]

Apparently some on the left are uber-polite to the point where my crassness offended.

[island911]

Originally Posted by kach22i

...
Island, I didn't take you as a conspiracy theorist before that last comment. Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just testing the waters?

I was supporting Kurt Starnes wise observation.

Again, considering that Wright said in an interview last April, that he saw that ... he had told Obama that the time may come when Obama will have to distance himself, for political gain . . . it is hardly a reach to consider that this IS EXACTLY what is going on here. Obama seems rather slow on the up-take here. Obamas initial response to Wright was weak as hell. -- CLEARLY something more (politically) had to be done. After all, this is chess they are playing ...not checkers. A whole lot of power is on the line, and both Obama and Wright are presenting with measured steps, as they try to paint a Presidential contender in a different light(ness). I have no doubt that Wright is guiding/influencing Obama in his moves. If you want to call that "conspiracy" feel free. But keep in mind, Wright had made these chess moves public about a year ago ...so it's not exactly a secret --which absence of would have helped you in support of your labeling me a "conspiracy theorist."

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by kach22i

You just made another observation for me, thanks.

It's Mr. Obama running for President not Mr. Wright.

Very insightful of you to share that with us

I see why you like these guys, they don't respond to direct questions either

Originally Posted by nostatic

Speaking of hatred and venom...can you try to avoid going down the road of threats like that? Let's try to keep if somewhat out of the gutter.

btw nice channeling of Mulholland with the crying baby graphic...

Todd, how exactly would he club someone to death with the venom and hatred that spews from Mr Wright's mouth? It is offensive, but unless he really yelled it in your ear, it probably would not hurt.

[jmshepard]

couldn't resist

[island911]

LOL!

and remember: "I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community" --Obama

.. but hey that was a few weeks ago . . beFOR Obama had ANY IDEA...

[berettafan]

words are important and it's a fair point that Paul's quote may have been off a bit.

however given his history here i would trust Paul when he says that he quoted the article directly. he is not prone to hyperbole and trash talking. his conduct on this board is deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

[URY914]

Thankyou, berettafan.

I feel vindicated. (a little)

[snowman]

I am giving you all an observation from a generation that recognizes a N when one sees it. IT is not about hate, its just a FACT about Wright, and quite possibly Obama. Both are communists. The term, N when used in a non biased, non racial way, is a description that any reasonable white or black would assign to such a so called person. It is a derogatory term meaning that the thing being described is lower than life and their views would not be accepted by any rational person. Similar terms can be applied to whites. The term as applied here, to these specific individuals, could be used in mixed company without fear of reprisal. Why? Because its true beyond a shadow of any doubt.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by snowman

...The term, N when used in a non biased, non racial way, is a description that any reasonable white or black would assign to such a so called person. It is a derogatory term meaning that the thing being described is lower than life and their views would not be accepted by any rational person. Similar terms can be applied to whites. The term as applied here, to these specific individuals, could be used in mixed company without fear of reprisal. Why? Because its true beyond a shadow of any doubt.

Excepting the "lower than life" part, are you describing yourself?