×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

This is why I thought conservatives were incorrect to go after Jeremiah Wright

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 4 months ago

User Journal 14

My good buddy, again:

My good buddy, again:

Before paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6, and summarizing that he thought homosexuality "illogical", Robertson had offered this:

"We're Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television," he tells me. "You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and letâ(TM)s get on with it, and everything will turn around."

Yep, that sure sounds like a man with a ZZ Top beard revving up the lynch mod, all right.
However, given the anti-Christian fervor of our day, it's been way too easy for the Usual Suspects to foam at the mouth.
I recall the same thing done with Jeremiah Wright. Now, I'm not in agreement with Black Liberation Theology, but the whole business of cherry-picking "God damn America" without offering analysis of the full sermon, if not Wright's career, seems dubious.
What's fascinating is that our purportedly superior academic overlords set such a terrible example in this regard.

14 comments

Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45759709)

You started off by referring to my pointing out that Duck Man exposed his own homophobia by stating he believes that A (homosexuality) leads directly to B (murder) which is not in the biblical verse that you provided. Then you went on to declare moral victory by attempting to place words in my mouth. You wrapped up by referring to someone who hasn't been mentioned widely in a number of years.

Can you make your statement more illogical by maybe including Benghazi, Obamacare, 9/11, and the Easter Bunny as well? It wouldn't be easy, but you're not far from doing it!

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45760983)

My point is that, in attempting to build a case that Roberson went on a "homphobic rant", you haven't show either, and are engaging in an Alinskyite attack that was as bad as anything ever done in the name of propaganda, offering Jeremiah Wright as a case in point.
For somebody a self-appointed, morally superior Lefty overlord, you seem to be falling short in the self-reflection department here.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45762247)

in attempting to build a case that Roberson went on a "homphobic rant"

I demonstrated that his interview, and his worldview, are rooted in homophobia. Apparently you didn't read where I did that, which suggests that it won't be worth doing it again. In the unlikely event that you suddenly decide to start reading my comments here is one place where I showed how deep the homophobia is with him [slashdot.org] .

For somebody a self-appointed, morally superior

Now you're just applying random labels without regard for reality. I never made any such claim of myself.

you seem to be falling short in the self-reflection department here.

Being as the second part of that statement requires the first part to be true, and the first is not true, there is no need to even evaluate the second part. But thanks for playing.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45762841)

You haven't show any actual "fear" in any of the words in the GQ interview. You also haven't justified the use of "rant". You're making that up, and trying to pull in other "politically incorrect" utterances to bolster a false argument. You succeed in piling on the foolishness.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45763775)

You haven't show any actual "fear" in any of the words in the GQ interview

If you can't read my comment to the point where you can even see that very simple fact, then there is no point in having this conversation. I laid it out very plainly for you. It appears even when I linked back to it you couldn't be bothered to read it.

You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

You're making that up, and trying to pull in other "politically incorrect" utterances

Where did I talk about "politically incorrect" or anything along that line?

I guess it doesn't really matter though. The point remains that no matter how you want to spin this, the man's freedom of speech has in no way been infringed upon. No reasonable person could make any other argument about it; even though there are at least three conservative politicians - including at least two who want to be president - who are racing to shove their feet into their own mouths by claiming otherwise.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45764027)

You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

No, you called the GQ interview a "homophobic rant", RIGHT HERE [slashdot.org] . This has been the entire rub of the issue. You're crapflooding, you're caught in the open, and you don't care to admit it.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45764647)

You also haven't justified the use of "rant".

Being as it wasn't part of the interview - as his show is not about homosexuality - his monologue on his perceived evils associated with homosexuality are more than qualified as a rant.

No, you called the GQ interview a "homophobic rant", RIGHT HERE. This has been the entire rub of the issue. You're crapflooding, you're caught in the open, and you don't care to admit it.

Smitty I really, really, wish you would return to your previous level of reading comprehension. We were capable of having civilized discussions back then. I don't know if I did something to permanently piss you off and cause you to not read my writing or what, but allow me to show you something from the very JE of mine that you just linked to [slashdot.org] .

Right after the italicized bit that slashdot strangely decided to render with a "quote" tag:

his homophobic rant in a magazine interview

Notice that I said "homophobic rant IN a magazine interview". You are erroneously accusing me of calling the entire interview a homophobic rant. If you would take a little time to actually read my writings in their entireties before pretending to respond to them, you would be able to see that.

In other words, compare your statement

you called the GQ interview a "homophobic rant"

To what I actually said

his homophobic rant in a magazine interview

They are not the same thing. This rather deflates your accusations regarding it, as they are based on your opting not to read the writing in front of you.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45765779)

You are erroneously accusing me of calling the entire interview a homophobic rant.

No, I'm driving home the point that you cannot justify using "homophobic rant". You're making that up.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45765897)

I would ask why you are attempting to weasel away from your own words, but that is your new standard MO now it appears. You explicitly said one thing two comments ago and now are trying to disown it as if you did not say it. We are beyond a failure to communicate when you can't even use the English language the same way now as we did just a few months ago.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45771149)

A few months ago, you were not labeling statements "homophobic rants" without basis, and trying to accuse me of calling for POTUSide. I haven't gone anywhere; you've become unhinged. I tried twice, with the Wright JE and the Olive Branch JE to bring things back to some point of stability. But, like ObamaCare, you just change the rules to win the news cycle, apparently.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#45771929)

A few months ago, you were not labeling statements "homophobic rants" without basis

Nor did I do it this time. I showed how the statement in question is a homophobic rant. You haven't bothered to actually read what I write in support of that label (which is not even remotely close to being exclusively mine in regards to the statement).

Furthermore we were not discussing homophobic rants months ago either.

and trying to accuse me of calling for POTUSide

That is factually incorrect. I have been pointing out your endless conspiracy theories for many months. You can go all the way back to some of your earliest JEs after January 2009 and find where I pointed out that you were eager to find an excuse to throw out the POTUS and not concerned about the legal requirements for doing such.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#45774317)

JEs after January 2009 and find where I pointed out that you were eager to find an excuse to throw out the POTUS and not concerned about the legal requirements for doing such.

You could, with equal reason, accuse my JEs of causing global warming (or whatever focus-grouped term you're using to focus these days).
I've never done other than support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and am in fact a retired veteran.
The implication of your CFL reference on my other JE implies you might be a Canuck, so let me forgive you this insult.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#45775483)

I've never done other than support and defend the Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States lays out a rather specific mechanism for removal of the POTUS. For the most part you have not shown any concern for it as your primary concern has been the removal in any way possible. I have asked you if it was simply an oversight brought on by excitement earlier, and you never responded to that query which supports the hypothesis that you don't care what methods are used so long as the POTUS is out. When you have a long history of calling for his removal without specifying a mechanism, followed by a brief history of showing slight concern for the mechanism, it is hard to take the latter as a serious expression of your beliefs - especially when you are unwilling to approach your earlier statements.

and am in fact a retired veteran.

Thank you for your service. However your veteran status has nothing to do with this.

Re:Holy non sequitur batman! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#45778953)

You're just making it up as you go. And my status as a veteran has everything to do with this, as you would know, had you clue #1, sir.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...