Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: This is why I thought conservatives were incorrect to go after Jeremiah Wright 14
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.
Holy non sequitur batman! (Score:2)
Can you make your statement more illogical by maybe including Benghazi, Obamacare, 9/11, and the Easter Bunny a
Re: (Score:1)
For somebody a self-appointed, morally superior Lefty overlord, you seem to be falling short in the self-reflection department here.
Re: (Score:2)
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 tr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 ar
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:1)