is the pope racist?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_re_us/pope_us

There's a difference between stating historical facts, and histerically claiming you hate white america.

Comparing Reverand Wright to a KKK member is a poor analogy, but this is a good analogy?

Is Reverand Wright a racist? I notice you never answered the question.

i did. is said he sure sounds like it.

my point in posting this is that the pope recognizes unequal footing.

There, I fixed it for you. Now let me ask you this, who's better off, the "african americans" descended from slaves who were mistreated, or the africans in Sudan, still there? Or in most parts of Africa for that matter?

Next question... Are you unaware that whites in this country have been treated just as badly in our past?

to summarize your couple of your points here: obama is a black racist in our now color-blind society.

got it.

If there is unequal footing, how can Wright be a racist? The suffering of his ancestors and himself at the hands of white people means he is allowed to hate white people, doesn't it?

And if Wright is a racist, as you say it sounds like, you are not bothered in the slightest that Obama seeks spiritual guidance from a racist.

And finally, if Wright is a racist, then my analogy to McCain attending a church that is aligned with the KKK would be appropriate.

So I think you have a lot of backpeddaling to do or yhou can just stick to your inconsistent guns (as usual).

Careful now Straw, careful, Tread lightly. Pure logic does not go over well with Ron ya know.

No it doesn't but his new tactic is to ignore the post, and try to start the conversation in another thread on another day.

I guess it beats his old tactic of posting meaningless gibberish and then giving himself a point.

Straw, just wait for the "point flipping".

Point Flipping: A common tactic of Ron when being owned on any topic to flip the point of the argument to something slightly related, or totally unrelated. Then to deny the original point.

Never, will Ron agree, that anything associated with his man crush might be wrong.

Mr. Obama has been whining today about his treatment by the mods in the debate last night.

this is going to be a great 4 years should be steal the vote this fall

To summarize your points:

1. A black person cannot be racist.

2. Making a problem seem worse than it is and then pretending you can solve it shows leadership ability.

3. Someone's voting record and the people from whom he seeks guidance do not reflect whatsoever on that person's goals, intents, and beliefs.

4. Your favored candidate should not have to answer for the things he says because if it makes him look bad, he meant something else (refer to #1).

One standard will do just fine.

I'd complain too.
It was a complete attempt at character assasination.
To the point where the former Clinton staffer moderating the debate got his questions DIRECTLY from right wing radio.
No talks about Condi Rice moderating meetings approving the use of torture, but we have to worry about Obama wearing a flag pin.

A question concerning a presidential candidate's affiliation with domestic terrorists does not concern anyone on the left, but the fact that a right-wing radio host raised the question is of concern - Really, God truly help this country



Non-sequitur and non-substantial. Condi Rice is not a presedential candidate, and the Dems were quite aware of the 3 time use use of waterboarding. Try to keep to the real issue, and his affiliation with domestic terrorists is a real BIG issue.

The SecState moderating discussions of torture isn't substantial?
I'm sorry, but I'd like to know where the next President (HRC, Obama, or McCain) stand where it comes to torture. I mean, there are still some important POLICY questions that need to be answered. Were any of you aware that HRC wanted to declare war on Iran? You might have missed it. It was buried between flag pins and if Jeremiah Wright was as patriotic as Obama.

The truth is that Obama said that an attack on Israel "would be an act of aggression that I would consider unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action." while Clinton said that "an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States".

i heard that rev wright wasn't a presidential candidate, either. how can this be true?

Obama wanted to go to war with pakistan, I think that Iran is a better choice than pakistan

And in that, HRC is actually showing some balls and should be acknowledged for it.

Clinton also said she'd be willing to make the US responsible for "protecting" other Middle Eastern countries if they cede any desires for a nuclear program.

I'm sorry, but this is MORE imperialistic and far reaching than the Bush policies have been.

When did the US become the police officer of the world? (rhetorical)

And the Bush administration, rightfully, took out al Qaeda leaders in tribal Pakistan in the SAME way Obama proposed. Has Bush declared war on Pakistan?

No the racists just counsels a Presidential Candidate. How can this be true?

"And the Bush administration, rightfully, took out al Qaeda leaders in tribal Pakistan "


You sure they are all gone? Becaue OBL is there and he hasnt been taken out...

And we have criminals advising the ACTUAL President. What's your point?

Did I say they were all gone?
And how do you know UBL is there? Back in the intel game? I thought you couldn't share...

But, if UBL is there...isn't that a sign that Obama's plan for taking out al Qaeda in Pakistan is the RIGHT move considering Pakistan hasn't done jack to take out UBL since 2001?