The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Wife and Mother Are Stinking, Fetid, Alcoholic Whores Who Would Sell their Manure Ridden Snatches for A Hit. Here's Why... (1341 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.11 on 92 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Anthony Locascio (View user info) at 2008-04-28 23:16:48 EDT
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, not long at all after 9/11, indeed, before the smoldering bodies had even been pulled from the rubble and laid to rest, made the wholly unoriginal statement that "the chickens are coming home to roost." The implication of such a statement is very clear and unmistakeable - 2800 Americans deserved to burn to death. The ones that leapt 90 stories to their inevitable deaths deserved to die when they crunched into the concrete. The fire and policemen who tried to save the lives of the people in the building deserved it. Two iconic pieces of architecture, where billions of dollars of commerce were done deserved to be destroyed. They all deserved it.
A few people have drawn some criticism of his remarks. If it wasn't for his relationship to a very important person nowadays, he'd be written off as just another crank. He is, however, the spiritual mentor of a certain fellow who wants to and may very well be the next leader of the United States, Barrack Obama. I don't really care if he's Obama's spiritual mentor though. Father Larkin, of Our Lady of Lourdes Church, was my spiritual mentor (no boy jokes, you freaks). I'm sure I live my life far differently than he. What did piss me off was this little exchange that the Reverend Wright had when he went in front of the national press club, supposedly to 'explain' himself.
------
In a sermon days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Wright said "America's chickens are coming home to roost" after the United States. Asked what he meant by that, Wright challenged the reporter questioning him.
"Have you heard the whole sermon?" he responded. "No. You haven't heard the whole sermon. That nullifies that question."
------
I didn't think it was possible to distill douchery to such a concentration, but apparently there is no maximum concentration. Mister Wright, apparently, can suggest that people might just deserve to burn in jet fuel, but because I haven't heard the entire hour of his stupid, anti-American sermon, I don't have the right to ask any questions about the part I did hear. By that logic, if I were to sit in on just the part of the 'Final Solution' meeting the Germans had about exterminating Jews, I couldn't ask about whether or not that was wrong, because I was five minutes late (showing my papers takes time, after all, volks).
Since we're going to operate under this assumption, I have decided to write an article called :
"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Wife and Mother Are Stinking, Fetid, Alcoholic Whores Who Would Sell their Manure Ridden Snatches for A Hit, and Here's Why." In this article, I'll explain how Reverend Wright has made cornholing family members an important part of his worship service. I'll talk about how obviously Reverend Wright doesn't molest boys, he prefers to stick his man meat into something female and tender and just under six, because, my God, he's not GAY or anything! I'll also talk about how on their Sunday picnics they use a small, live persian cat as a pinata, and Wright just browbeats the kids into thinking the entrails that spill out are candy. I'll talk about all of that, and you can't say anything about it, because you haven't read the whole article. You'll just have to assume it's true. Because that's the way the 'Reverend' likes his information - tightly controlled, to a focused audience, and without accountability. I have to admit I like it. Just like I like the fact that his Saturday nights usually involve a Pomeranian, a jar of Jiff, and him with no pants. But don't take my word for it. Read the article. When I get around to writing it.
Fuck you Wright.
User Reviews
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2008-05-04 02:36:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I haven't talked to you in a long time so hi. How's everything? Tell Stacey hi also :)
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2008-05-02 19:33:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the guy is a dickhead.
so is ltap.
anybody who votes for hillary is an idiot.
just thought i'd throw all of that out there.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2008-05-01 18:13:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for leaving that copyright notice in the picture.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-05-01 14:05:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You seem to be positively anti-Obama.
I'm guessing you'll vote McCain. -2 for that.
Also, who cares what the "spiritual mentor" of one of the candidates thinks? No one pays attention to them.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-05-01 13:01:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2008-05-01 10:16:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Why does Wright look like a white guy in every picture I've seen of him?
--
That probably explains some of the anger.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2008-05-01 10:16:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Why does Wright look like a white guy in every picture I've seen of him?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2008-05-01 01:33:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 17:16:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-30 16:23:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 15:43:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
well, yes, he did say that and i agree that it's reasonable for someone to think that the US got what it deserved. what i take away from it though is that he thinks the government's actions caused the attack and he's mad about the deaths of 3,000 innocents.
-----
What? Are you kidding? You're absolutely joking me, you must be. He thinks those 3000 got what they deserved, he has SAID SO, hidden! What, you think I'm some kind of fucking idiot to believe that he really was sorry about those people croaking? They were just a buncha white devils getting their just due to a guy like Wright.
=====================================================
i'll have to watch the full sermon again, it's been over a month since i've seen it last. from what i can remember, it seemed like he was condemning the government's actions because he believed it to be their fault for the deaths of 3,000 innocents. i don't remember taking away the implication that 3,000 innocent people deserved to die. i don't know why i even care. the guy is a headcase.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 16:57:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"well, yes, he did say that and i agree that it's reasonable for someone to think that the US got what it deserved."
what i meant to say is that it's reasonable for something to think Wright was implying the US got what it deserved. sorry, i'm running on no sleep and Iraq is a stressful place sometimes....
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-30 16:23:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 15:43:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
well, yes, he did say that and i agree that it's reasonable for someone to think that the US got what it deserved. what i take away from it though is that he thinks the government's actions caused the attack and he's mad about the deaths of 3,000 innocents.
-----
What? Are you kidding? You're absolutely joking me, you must be. He thinks those 3000 got what they deserved, he has SAID SO, hidden! What, you think I'm some kind of fucking idiot to believe that he really was sorry about those people croaking? They were just a buncha white devils getting their just due to a guy like Wright.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 15:43:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"We can agree to disagree on this but to me when someone says the "chickens are coming home to roost" it means they are getting what they deserve for something they did."
well, yes, he did say that and i agree that it's reasonable for someone to think that the US got what it deserved. what i take away from it though is that he thinks the government's actions caused the attack and he's mad about the deaths of 3,000 innocents.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-30 13:04:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-04-30 12:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so did that white reverend who supports mccain.
the problem is america tolerates and gives a voice to these religious nut jobs rather than marginalises and ignores them like they do in the developed world.
----------------------
I understan d bit of political posturing from candidates to get votes. McCain needed to consolidate power with the Religious loons so he accepted Hagee's endorsement. That is a far cry from attending his church for 20+ years and bringing his kids up in his flock.
I personally think Obama realized wright was full of shit the whole time but realized that where he was he needed to get black "street cred" which wright provided. He tried not to throw him under the bus when some of his nonsense first came out, but wright couldn't leave well enough alone and got kicked to the curb.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-04-30 12:20:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 07:07:38 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if europeans never felt the need to prosper from the labor, land, resources, and blood of others, the country that i love and was born and raised in wouldn't even exist.
=====
So true.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-04-30 12:14:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The rape analogy made me punch my monitor. I've listened to scumbags explain that since the victim had on a miniskirt and halter top, they were asking for it.
The sad thing is, at some level, society gives credence to that reasoning.
But it's ok since rape is apparently such a knee slapper.
I fucking hate people.
And don't get me started on women who make false rape claims. Those cretins have set women back. And, every false rape claim that occurs makes it more difficult for legitimate rape cases to be taken seriously.
Curb stomp 'em all. Rapists and the women who make false rape claims.
Sorry. I'll end my tangent.
I wholeheartedly agree that spiritual and activist leaders such as Wright and Sharpton HURT black people by keeping them in the victim mentality mindset. And constantly blaming Whitey is bullshit too.
<sarcasm> Oh yeah. Every morning when I wake up, I plan what to do next to keep the black man down. It's an all consuming passion of mine, you see. White Power!</sarcasm>
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-04-30 12:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so did that white reverend who supports mccain.
the problem is america tolerates and gives a voice to these religious nut jobs rather than marginalises and ignores them like they do in the developed world.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-30 11:48:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 10:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
who, in their wildest mind, would read what i said and assume i think it was reasonable to kill 3,000 innocent people because of our government's actions?
i said our government's actions CAUSED it to happen. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A REASONABLE RESPONSE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE; CAUSE AND EFFECT ONLY. CAUSE AND FUCKING EFFECT. WHY IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND???
----------------
Okay, if I get you straight: We're 'in their territory', so to speak, it produces a backlash effect that included 9/11 (which you are not necessarily condoning). Cause, effect, fair enough.
Now, my question is, what do I get to do in response? If invading Iraq and Afghanistan was over the line, or under the line, or whatever, what is the appropriate response, in your opinion?
And one more point while we're at it. I think it was you (God knows it's a lot of other people) who asked "Why are we in Iraq?" I'll give you the answer, the real answer, the whole answer, the answer everyone seems to tapdance around for I don't know what reason. It's not oil. It's not crusades. It's not weapons of mass destruction (we sell them to well-behaved regimes). It is a shift in thinking.
9/11 changed things. I know people are tired of hearing that, and I don't give a gold fuck. It changed the mode of thinking to this: "We will now take those who say "Death to America" seriously". That's it, and that's all. The Taliban hosted and snuggled OSama Bin Laden and pumped their fists in the air and guess what? Goodbye. Saddam was on a four-hour speech on Saddam radio every week talking about Death to America. He's gone. The North Koreans were making a lot of noise about how they were going to deploy their newly found nukes. They turned the pressure on there (although in a different fashion).
The new mindset is we're not going to tolerate slobs anymore. When you have a neighbor shaking his fist out the window and telling you he's coming after you and your kids, you'd better take him seriously. Even if it means ventilating the asshole's forehead.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-30 11:46:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 10:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wrong, wrong, wrong. you are comparing apples and oranges. that is absolutely no reasonable comparison. inciting man's desire to fuck is not the same as inciting man's retaliatory instinct. a man makes a choice to rape just as a man makes a choice to retaliate when he feels he's been wronged. the difference is that the woman never made the rapist feel that he'd been wronged.
----------------
Some men may feel that by dressing and acting a certain way a woman is asking for sex. By doing that and then not giving up sex they are wronging that man.
Comparing retaliating in the case of 9/11 and the founding of the US is laughable. I know you aren;t trying to do that directly but when you talk about mans right to retaliate and then bring up the US that is what you are doing.
i agree with all those things. however, if you are trying to take the blame away from the US completely, i must disagree. believe me, i'm not naive enough to think having troops on their holy land is the main cause. it is one factor. fundamentalism being the biggest of all the factors.
-----------------
See here is the thing, the main cause for Osama to be involved, for Al-Queda to be involved is US troops in Saudi. Look where the bombers were from, looks where their funding comes from. the past couple years you hear more and more about Palestine being the cause, and Iraq being the cause, but when a country in the midddle east fucks another country like that or when muslims somewhere are fucked with worse that that you don't hear a peep.
I am not trying to take the blame away fromt he US completely, and it is well and good to talk about changing the way we ensure the oil supply, but I have yet to hear a better idea. I think funding the Afghani's against Russia was still a good idea. I dount the ME would have been more stable if we never had bases in Saudi (and without the US there the royal family would still be in charge).
We can agree to disagree on this but to me when someone says the "chickens are coming home to roost" it means they are getting what they deserve for something they did.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-04-30 10:18:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They hate us for our pendulous scrota.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 10:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"fundamentalism caused it. price and value of oil caused it. saddam going into kuwait caused it. there are hundreds of political and economic steps that lead up to our association with Saudi."
i agree with all those things. however, if you are trying to take the blame away from the US completely, i must disagree. believe me, i'm not naive enough to think having troops on their holy land is the main cause. it is one factor. fundamentalism being the biggest of all the factors.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-30 10:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-30 08:24:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you gotta be shittin' me... you really weren't joking.
who, in their wildest mind, would read what i said and assume i think it was reasonable to kill 3,000 innocent people because of our government's actions?
i said our government's actions CAUSED it to happen. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A REASONABLE RESPONSE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE; CAUSE AND EFFECT ONLY. CAUSE AND FUCKING EFFECT. WHY IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND???
-----------------
If a chick is scantily dressed in a bar and someone rapes her would you say her actions caused the rape?
That is exactly what you are saying here.
=======================================================
wrong, wrong, wrong. you are comparing apples and oranges. that is absolutely no reasonable comparison. inciting man's desire to fuck is not the same as inciting man's retaliatory instinct. a man makes a choice to rape just as a man makes a choice to retaliate when he feels he's been wronged. the difference is that the woman never made the rapist feel that he'd been wronged. if man never felt the need to fight for a cause he believed in, the country that i love and was born and raised in wouldn't even exist. i'm not saying it's right to kill innocent people in retaliation and to get a point across. it's absolutely wrong. but it happened and if we don't want it to happen again, our government needs to seriously reconsider it's foreign policies. yes we need oil and we will still for quite some time, but are we going about the right way to ensure we have access to it?
and i'm not claiming that having troops in their lands is the root cause of the attack. it's part of the problem. i would keep arguing but i've had this argument a million times and when it comes to this sort of thing, people will almost never get to the point where they can see eye to eye. let's just agree to disagree. i've made friends with some of the locals in my mideast travels. one of them an Iraqi man that I became pretty good friends with and had coffee with daily and we would discuss the war over cigars and what he and other Arabs thought about the US. i think i have a pretty good idea why Arab terrorists would want to attack us and i don't think it's because they "hate our freedom".
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-30 08:42:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
here's a short quiz in case you still don't get it, indo-
i spit on someones car and they shoot me in the face.
what caused the person to shoot me in the face?
a.) spitting on their car
b.) it was a reasonable response to shoot me in the face
c.) Hillary Clinton
take as much time as you need to answer.
-----------------------------
i see your point, but it is stupid. when someone throws out "x" causes something they are normally assigning the blame. saying that the US caused it in absence of any other facts does impart the blame on the US. fundamentalism caused it. price and value of oil caused it. saddam going into kuwait caused it. there are hundreds of political and economic steps that lead up to our association with Saudi. clinging to and getting whiny about the US having troops in Saudi as the root or main cause does imply that is where you place the blame.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-30 08:24:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you gotta be shittin' me... you really weren't joking.
who, in their wildest mind, would read what i said and assume i think it was reasonable to kill 3,000 innocent people because of our government's actions?
i said our government's actions CAUSED it to happen. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A REASONABLE RESPONSE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE; CAUSE AND EFFECT ONLY. CAUSE AND FUCKING EFFECT. WHY IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND???
-----------------
If a chick is scantily dressed in a bar and someone rapes her would you say her actions caused the rape?
That is exactly what you are saying here.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-04-30 01:24:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:38:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
okey dokey
i have to stop know i need to take a berg
---
You need to stop know?
Nice one.
Oh, and if you are going to take a berg?... make sure you sneak up on it - and bring cookies.
This post still sucks the hotwillie.
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2008-04-29 23:39:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
see?
uber is good because once in a while you get posts (and replies) like I see here.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-29 22:04:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OIKkUTn1Wuc&feature=related
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:50:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
here's a short quiz in case you still don't get it, indo-
i spit on someones car and they shoot me in the face.
what caused the person to shoot me in the face?
a.) spitting on their car
b.) it was a reasonable response to shoot me in the face
c.) Hillary Clinton
===
THE PERSON WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER SHOT YOU IN THE FACE!
OMGOMGOMG! HOW CAN YOU BE APOLOGETIC OF A PERSON WHO SHOOTS YOU IN THE FACE!
OUTRAGE! CRISIS! CONTROVERSY! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:48:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My favorite Reverend Wright quote is:
OL' BILL WAS RIDIN' DIRTY!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
here's a short quiz in case you still don't get it, indo-
i spit on someones car and they shoot me in the face.
what caused the person to shoot me in the face?
a.) spitting on their car
b.) it was a reasonable response to shoot me in the face
c.) Hillary Clinton
take as much time as you need to answer.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:45:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
why do you care about this?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:38:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:01:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:44:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So you are saying their response to infidel soilders being present on the holy land of slaughtering 3k civilians was reasonable?
==================================================================
i hope to god you are trying to make a sarcastic joke here. sometimes i can't tell with you.
---------
When people say it was in response to American actions, what else am I to think?
===============================================================
you gotta be shittin' me... you really weren't joking.
who, in their wildest mind, would read what i said and assume i think it was reasonable to kill 3,000 innocent people because of our government's actions?
i said our government's actions CAUSED it to happen. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A REASONABLE RESPONSE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE; CAUSE AND EFFECT ONLY. CAUSE AND FUCKING EFFECT. WHY IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND???
only a backwoods, no education having, blindly patriotic redneck would make such a ridiculous assumption. absolutely ridiculous. ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:38:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
okey dokey
i have to stop know i need to take a berg
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:37:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
it was a joke, dude
the point is you can't separate iraq, iran, afghanistan, et al when it comes to interventionism and blowback
the west has a long imperialist history in the region and it all comes down to oil and everyone knows it
i could go back even further with britain, etc
if you understand the history of the region you understand the reasons for their actions, no matter how reprehensible and the way to win a war or resolve a conflict is to understand the opposing side
-----------------------
Good. It hurt my soul to think someone thought that was a good analogy.
Yes you can. They are differnt ocuntries who are very independent, and racist about thier neighbors. Pan Islamic movements having any serious support is a very recent phenomenon. I don't think every country is in a vaccuum, but tneither are they one group.
I am with you there it is all about oil. It is just stupid, in my opinion, to think US is the only outside element involved, or the worst.
I understand the reasons for their actions, but that doesn't make thier actions in any way justifiable, nor does it move the blame from them.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:25:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
[What'll we get for ten dollars?]
[Every 'ting you want]
[Everything?]
[Every 'ting!]
[Ooh! Are you limpin'?! Ahh!]
[What are we gonna do? Oh, will you suck it for me?! Aaahh!]
[Ooohh!]
Chorus (repeated during breakdowns):
[Ahh! Me so horny!]
[Me love you long time!]
Verse 1: Brother Marquis
Sittin' at home with my dick on hard
So I got the black book for a freak to call
Picked up the telephone, then dialed the 7 digits
Said, Yo, this Marquis, baby! Are you down with it?
I arrived at her house, knocked on the door
Not having no idea of what the night had in store
I'm like a dog in heat, a freak without warning
I have an appetite for sex, 'cause me so horny
Chorus
Verse 2: Fresh Kid Ice
Girls always ask me why I fuck so much
I say What's wrong, baby doll, with a quick nut?
'Cause you're the one, and you shouldn't be mad
I won't tell your mama if you don't tell your dad
I know he'll be disgusted when he sees your pussy busted
Won't your mama be so mad if she knew I got that ass?
I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny
Chorus
Verse 3: Brother Marquis
You can say I'm desperate, even call me perverted
But you say I'm a dog when I leave you fucked and deserted
I'll play with your heart just like it's a game
I'll be blowing your mind while you're blowing my brains
I'm just like that man they call Georgie Puddin' Pie
I fuck all the girls and I make 'em cry
I'm like a dog in heat, a freak without warning
I have an appetite for sex, 'cause me so horny.
Chorus
Breakdown(4x):
[Ahh! Hold on this! Oh, sock it to me!]
Chorus
Verse 4: Fresh Kid Ice
It's true, you were a virgin until you met me
I was the first to make you hot and wetty-wetty
You tell your parents that we're goin' out
Never to the movies, just straight to my house
You said it yourself, you like it like I do
Put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole too
I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny
Chorus
Breakdown (repeated till end of track):
[Fuckie suckie]
[Me fuckie suckie]
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
it was a joke, dude
the point is you can't separate iraq, iran, afghanistan, et al when it comes to interventionism and blowback
the west has a long imperialist history in the region and it all comes down to oil and everyone knows it
i could go back even further with britain, etc
if you understand the history of the region you understand the reasons for their actions, no matter how reprehensible and the way to win a war or resolve a conflict is to understand the opposing side
if canada actually had been invaded by japan, we would have intervened and that history with japan would affect our relations and interactions for decades
fuck the sushi
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:07:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:58:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
if japan invaded canada 20 years ago how many sushi bars would there in the us?
all in the neighborhood and people remember
----------------
Worst analogy I have ever heard in my life.
First for that to work that canada (Iraq) would have had to invaded the US (Saudi, or Kuwait) first. Also after the US stopped Saddam in gulf war one it was probably th eheight of its popularity in the ME, especially in Saudi.
Unless you are saying that Canada is Iran and th eUS is Saudi which would make even less sense since they aren't too fond of each other and are both trying to increase their control in the region.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 21:01:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:44:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So you are saying their response to infidel soilders being present on the holy land of slaughtering 3k civilians was reasonable?
==================================================================
i hope to god you are trying to make a sarcastic joke here. sometimes i can't tell with you.
---------
When people say it was in response to American actions, what else am I to think? If I spit on someones car and they shot me in the face and people said, well you spit on their car, that makes it appear you think it is a reasonable reaction. It isn't like we were in Saudi enacting laws or abusing women. You must have fucking known people there, did you ever hear of shit like that? When did US troops open fire on civilians? If you are saying america's policies are to blame then you are saying the reaction wasn't to blame(or at least less to blame).
I think you know me well enough to know that I don't think America has clean hands or is perfect, but with oil having the importance that it does in this world the US can't, and couldn't just let shit unfold with our hands under our ass.
What was worse for afghanistan, Soviets or the US arming them to fight the soviets?
What was worse for Saudi, having US troops there or letting Iraq roll over the country?
I am all for drilling alaska and getting alternative fuel so we can ignore the ME but the fact is we can't do that yet.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:58:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
if japan invaded canada 20 years ago how many sushi bars would there in the us?
all in the neighborhood and people remember
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:56:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*I agree, hidden, in as far as fucktards like Sharpton, Jackson, and this new guy tend to hurt black causes.
Yeah...I'm still an idiot.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree, hidden, in as far as fucktards like Sharpton, Jackson, and this new guy...what's his name...I don't know...everyone else will forget in a couple months. I found the editorial dispassionate, which is lacking in all other talk about this subject that i've seen. The media are playing everyone for fools...again. Nice going, America.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
read your fucking history
---------------------
You just tied the Shah to 9/11.
What the fuck do they have in common.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
its blowback, baby
nothing reasonable about it but it is what it is
the cia helped britain overthrow some dude whose name i forget in iran in the early 50's and installed the shah, who was as bad as saddam only he was our boy so we let him torture anyone he wanted as long as we got the oil
the cia guy in charge was stormin' norman's daddy, btw
25 years later everyone said wtf when the iranians took over the us embassy and the whole hostage thing
around that time the cia trained and funded bin laden and the mujahadeen after russia invaded afghanistan
the same guys hit the towers after we put soldiers on saudi soil when saddam invaded kuwait
it always comes back to bite us in the ass when we muck around over there
watch what happens when the house of saud falls in a few years holy fuck that's gonna be a shitstorm
none of it's reasonable but if we pulled our head out of our ass and took the long view maybe we could mitigate the endless cycle of bullshit but wait there's too much money to be made from endless war
military-industrial complex just like eisenhower warned
probably be suicide bombers on us soil going into malls with heavy coats during the holidays and a lot worse just watch
blowback baby it never ends
read your fucking history
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:44:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:10:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wright in no way, shape, or form implied that ANYONE deserved to die on 9/11. he was simply saying that our goverment's foreign policy caused the attack. terrorists don't just attack for no reason. if they did, they would have plenty of other countries to attack. but who gets attacked? oh yeah, the two nations that fuck around in their holy lands- the US and Britain. what is so hard to understand about that?
-------------
So you are saying their response to infidel soilders being present on the holy land of slaughtering 3k civilians was reasonable?
==================================================================
i hope to god you are trying to make a sarcastic joke here. sometimes i can't tell with you.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:42:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
sorry, lungfish, but only some of that article was "intelligent". Jeremiah Wright's sermons (and i watch as many as them as i can find) are absolutely harmful to black Americans. when he talks about slaverly, all he does is bring back anger over something that happened long ago and the whites of today had nothing to do with. how can blacks move forward if they are kept angry over the past and are taught to constantly be suspicious of racism every time something unfavorable happens to them when whites are involved? he also says the US government invented AIDS and crack to wipe out the black race. i don't think i need explain why that's absolutely ridiculous.
i saw him mention that Hillary never knew what it was like to not be picked up by a cab because of the color of her skin. he lives in Chicago. i've probably been in a 100 different cabs in Chicago. only ONE time was the cab driver white. every other time it was an indian, arab, black, asian, etc. ONE WHITE DRIVER IN OVER 100 CAB RIDES. i've gotten passed up by several cabs in one night more times than i can remember when the cab had no passengers and the driver clearly saw me. so this white boy knows what it's like. blacks are focused on racism coming from whites and you simply can't argue that. so if he's talking about racist cab drivers, his followers immediately think "racist white people". that's harmful in more ways than one.
people like Wright and Sharpton and Jackson are the absolute worst kind of blacks. they are racial opportunists and are unwittingly using that opportunity to send the advancement of blacks into regression. they constantly latch on to news stories that get a lot of attention as long as they involve a white person doing something to a black person and immediately shout "RACISM!". yeah, we get it, racism exists. blacks are racist against me sometimes. do i start a fucking march every time it happens? of course not. it's a fact of life and you're a better person if you turn the other cheek.
if people like Wright keeps blacks in a constant state of paranoia over white racism against them, they will never be able to move forward. in the ghettos, they will always latch on to things like gang violence because they feel disenfranchised when it comes to taking part in what they consider to be a white world. many a times i have seen young black men say they can't get a job because they are black. they don't realize that many blacks are doing just fine in government and the corporate world because they decided to go to school and be upstanding members of their communities instead of hopping on the thug life bandwagon. every time i hear someone say blacks in the ghettos have no choice it makes me sick. especially because things like scholarships based on the color of your skin exist, which i don't agree with, but hey, it can't be all bad.
fuck i just realized i'm ranting too much. i'm going to bed. it's almost 4am in Baghdad.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:10:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wright in no way, shape, or form implied that ANYONE deserved to die on 9/11. he was simply saying that our goverment's foreign policy caused the attack. terrorists don't just attack for no reason. if they did, they would have plenty of other countries to attack. but who gets attacked? oh yeah, the two nations that fuck around in their holy lands- the US and Britain. what is so hard to understand about that?
-------------
So you are saying their response to infidel soilders being present on the holy land of slaughtering 3k civilians was reasonable?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:18:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love the fucktards that want to defend this guys words.
The reason we moved bases to Saudi was because of Saddam (remember he invaded Kuwait, then rolled into Saudi). Up until 03 he was still a threat there. The fact that people can say Osama was justified or US actions gave him a legitimate reason to attack are stupid plain and simple. The people who committed 9/11 weren't opressed by the US. We haven't even fired a weapon there in anger against a Saudi citizen.
I love Wrights newset claims. Black people apparently have differnt kinds of brains, according to wright this is why they can't sit still in class.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:10:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you are so fucking stupid that it is painful to even think about how you managed to grow up to be an adult without getting any smarter than you were at 10 years old.
Wright in no way, shape, or form implied that ANYONE deserved to die on 9/11. he was simply saying that our goverment's foreign policy caused the attack. terrorists don't just attack for no reason. if they did, they would have plenty of other countries to attack. but who gets attacked? oh yeah, the two nations that fuck around in their holy lands- the US and Britain. what is so hard to understand about that?
don't get me wrong, i think Wright is the absolute worst kind of person and his sermons greatly harm blacks and are in no way constructed to help in their advancement. but the one thing i do agree with him on is that our actions in Arab lands and the support of Arab enemies is exactly what caused the attack. do i think innocent civilians deserved to die? of course not. that's an absolutely preposterous notion.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2008-04-29 20:08:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
um...have you seen the whole sermon?
I suggest you do because this is in a fairly legitimate context.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-04-29 19:59:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The right response to the controversy that has been generated with regard to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. is not to run away from the United Church of Christ pastor, to condemn him, or to try to apologize for him.
Rather, it is to listen to him and to recognize that Wright's not the disease that afflicts our body politic.
Indeed, this former Marine who became an remarkably-successful and widely-respected religious leader is in possession of the balm that has frequently proven to be the cure for what ails America -- an eyes-wide-open faith in the prospect that this country can and will put aside the sins of the past and forge a future that is as just as it is righteous.
As Wright has illustrated over the past several days, in a remarkable appearance Friday on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal and in speeches to the Detroit NAACP and the National Press Club in Washington, he is the opposite of the caricature of an angry, America-hating false prophet that has been so crudely attached to him. Deeply grounded in biblical tradition, nuanced in his understanding of race relations and historically experienced in his assessments of America's strengths and weaknesses, he has much to say to this country at this time.
Not all of what Wright says is comforting.
Nor are his views universally appealing or entirely unassailable.
But they are very much within the mainstream of American religious and political discourse.
The problem is not Jeremiah Wright.
The problem is a contemporary political culture that has come to rely on character assassination as an easy tool for reversing electoral misfortune -- and a media that willingly invites manipulation.
Let's not forget how Wright became an issue in the 2008 presidential race. Republican operatives, fretful about their party's political fortunes, decided that the only way to weaken the candidacy of Wright's longtime parishioner, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, was by suggesting the Democratic presidential front-runner was in the sway of an anti-American radical.
That end was achieved by separating out from long and thoughtful sermons regarding matters biblical and political seemingly offensive phrases and then inviting the Grand Old Party's media echo chamber to repeat the sound bites until they became conventional "wisdom."
This is a classic guilt-by-association maneuver, played out so aggressively in the current circumstance that it would make Joe McCarthy blush. But it has worked, at least in part because people of good faith have not taken the time to assess and appropriately answer the charge that Obama's connection to Wright confirms the candidate to be either a closet radical or, worse yet, a dupe of some free-floating, ill-defined but still frightful fringe.
The response of Obama -- most recently in an extended and at times painful press conference on Tuesday -- and of many of his supporters has been to try to put distance between the candidate and the preacher. "They offend me," the senator said of controversial comments by the minister who presided at his wedding and baptized his children. "They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally today."
That's strong stuff, to be sure. But it is not likely to end the wrangling over Wright.
While it is always good to maintain America's historic wall of separation between church and state, the Obama camp has not had a lot of success so far in separating this particular statesman from his church.
That's because the candidate and his backers have consistently come across as being embarrassed and ashamed by Wright.
That's the wrong response. It's perfectly fine to disagree with Wright. And Barack Obama should do so.
But there's little if anything about this pastor that should provoke embarrassment or invite apology.
Wright can be unsettling, thought-provoking, often right and sometimes wrong. But he is neither anti-American nor unpatriotic.
In more ways than Republican and now Democratic critics seem prepared to admit, Wright is the embodiment of an American religious and political tradition of challenging the country's sins while calling it to the higher ground that extends from the founding of the republic. No less a figure than Thomas Jefferson -- who constructed that wall of separation between church and state but who worried a good deal about questions of the divine -- worried openly about the retribution that would befall a nation that permitted slavery.
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other," wrote Jefferson in 1781's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he asked, "(Can) the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."
The wrath of God brought down on a country that permits slavery? A nation damned by its original sin? God damn America?
America has been blessed from its beginnings by champions of liberty, by abolitionists and civil rights marchers, by suffragists and union organizers, by anti-imperialists like Mark Twain and challengers of the military-industrial complex like Dwight Eisenhower. Necessarily, these patriots have said some tough things about American leaders and policies. They have acknowledged flaws that are self-evident. Yet, they have not done so out of hatred. Rather, they have loved America sufficiently to believe it can be as good and as just as figures so diverse and yet in some very important ways so similar as Thomas Jefferson and Jeremiah Wright have taught us.
----
John Nichols (The Nation), today. Sorry, it's just the first intelligent thing I've read about the whole affair.
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2008-04-29 19:48:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This guy must really fucking want McCain to win.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-04-29 18:53:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
:)
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-04-29 18:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2008-04-29 02:50:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
America is pure and innocent and was the victim of an unprovoked attack!
--
Bart, for such a sharp guy you certainly can be a deluded dumbass at times.
On 9/11, fundamentalist Muslims deliberately targeted CIVILIANS.
Read that last line again. If you can't see the difference between that and ANY mistakes the US may have made under any motivation, noble or self-serving, then you need to pull our head out of the sand.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-04-29 18:27:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
YAAAAAWWWWN
Vote Nader
--
The only thing worse than an ignoramus is an ignoramus who thinks she is enlightened.
Wright's other excuse for being a cornucopia of bullshit is that 'black churches are different.'
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 16:52:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 08:19:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The removal of this item from the front page is precisely why there really isn't any point in continuing to post on ubersite. A post in which an individual makes a makes a facial expression called "bonkeye" remains up for the duration, but this post, which makes a legitimate satirical point, gets pulled off the front page.
===================
waaaaaaaah my post got knocked off the front page waaaaaaaah uber is mean to me waaaaaaaaaah
why do you guys like bonkeye better than me waaaaaaah i'm smart why don't you see that waaaaaaaaaah
hilarious
man up you pussy
there's no crying on ubersite
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2008-04-29 16:45:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
post some more of those hilarious radio shows, btw
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:52:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
first of all, just because i fuck pigs that doesn't mean i'm stupid
second, you actually thought bart had been so incensed by your post he actually took the time to remove it from the front page
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:44:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hahahahaha
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:27:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, I doubt it would be all that difficult for Mr. Wright to summarize his sermon and explain what he was trying to say. It seems like that would make for a better interview than the very politician-like answer he gave.
That seems like a better way to handle it, anyway. If a journalist is going to ask you a tough question about something potentially taken out of context, a better way to deter people from asking it again is to give an incredibly in depth response so incredibly boring and mind numbing that no man dare ask you about it again.
Shit, I should be a controversial Reverend!
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:22:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 05:19:06 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The removal of this item from the front page is precisely why there really isn't any point in continuing to post on ubersite. A post in which an individual makes a makes a facial expression called "bonkeye" remains up for the duration, but this post, which makes a legitimate satirical point, gets pulled off the front page.
I expected a cadre of morons to weigh in, and I certainly expected a negative rating on the post, but Bart was one of the individuals on this site that I thought would be smart enough to understand what I was trying to say. It doesn't really look that way - either he isn't intelligent enough to get what I was saying (which I must say I don't think), or he didn't invest any thought at all in what the point of this article, which was never about what Wright said, but rather our right to question him about it. Instead, Bart just let preprogrammed emotional responses screen out any logic and pulled it off the front page. If that's what's going to happen, why bother with this website at all? Yes yes, I know, I would hardly be missed. But the fact remains I was making a legitimate point, however crude, and the post got pulled.
Just freaking disappointing.
=====
I guess so, at any rate, it didn't take much effort for me to do this, so...
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:16:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 14:56:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
the dude answered a shitload of questions, including the one he called 'nullified'
---------
That's not answers, that's a jackball out there giving a speech. An answer would have been "Yes, I said 'God Damn America' and no I'm not sorry." I don't blame someone with your limited intellect for not getting it. You're exactly the sort of guy I'd expect to be in the Obama camp, a guy those idea of a tough question is "What farm animal wouldn't you stick your shriveled pecker in?"
You're just too dumb to be a part of this conversation. Take a walk.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 15:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
stfu forensic
this is ubersite
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-04-29 14:59:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is something fundamentally icky about drumming a post off the front page just because the poster's opinion may differ from the consensus.
Hopefully this will help.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-29 14:56:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
the dude answered a shitload of questions, including the one he called 'nullified'
whether you agreed with his answers is one thing, but the guy answered all the question, some of which were pretty tough
but you probably get all your information from fox news snippets
the fact you actually thought bart 'censored' your insignificant little post and your attitude that 'morons' will come to disagree with your vaunted wisdom is a testament to your own arrogance and intellectual dishonesty, the very things you claim enrage you about wright
i'm going to punish you by -2ing that shit late grueberfest entry which was formulaic, cliched, and overrated so you can whine some more
you're the poor man's jack mccallum
all the arrogance but half the hits!
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-04-29 14:15:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:45:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:42:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there, now quit whining.
ps, my zero was really fucking generous.
----------
You can disagree all you want with the post, call it an electronic turd for all I care. All I'm saying is, if you get up in front of the National Press Club, shouldn't you be prepared to answer some questions?
---
I would not disagree with that.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2008-04-29 13:03:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:45:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:42:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there, now quit whining.
ps, my zero was really fucking generous.
----------
You can disagree all you want with the post, call it an electronic turd for all I care. All I'm saying is, if you get up in front of the National Press Club, shouldn't you be prepared to answer some questions?
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:42:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there, now quit whining.
ps, my zero was really fucking generous.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:41:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
bart didn't ban anything, you fruit loop.
he did a bit of recoding a while back that drops a post from the front page after it has a rating less than -1 with reviews from ten (i think) or more separate accounts.
some sort of a separating the wheat from the chaff thing, i guess.
maybe this zero will get you back on the front page.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:33:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 11:05:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wright is a fruit. I'm keeping this in the Recently Reviewed column until bart bans or reinstates the article.
-----------
Because this post is important enough to necessitate either of those actions.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:31:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:57:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
As I said in the post, this post isn't about Obama, it's about this Wright idiot. And apparently Wright is important because Obama felt it important to distance himself from this guy. And as a patriotic American, I do keep an eye on people who, supposedly sharing my citizenship, exhort my country be destroyed or damned. FDR felt the same way too (see his treatment of the German Bund).
--------
Obama didn't distance himself from the guy. He gave a thoughtful and suitably complex evaluation of his sermons. And he didn't do it because he thinks Wright is important. He did it because the media thinks Wright is important and he wants to win an election.
But thanks for "keeping an eye" on people for me. At first I thought you were just a stupid schmuck buying into pointless media hype, but now I realize you're a noble watchdog for our country.
Fuck off, fatass. I can take care of myself, and I'm worried a lot more by the endless mass of dumbasses like you than I am about loud nigger preachers that get too much attention.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-04-29 12:08:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Malcolm X said the same thing when Kennedy was assasinated.
So at least we can bask in the knowledge that Wright is an unoriginal, rip offer who couldn't come up with his own inflammatory statement.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 11:05:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wright is a fruit. I'm keeping this in the Recently Reviewed column until bart bans or reinstates the article.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:57:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
...There are a million legitimate criticisms of Obama, and this preacher nonsense is not one of them. If you're going to come back and say that this post has nothing to do with Obama then I'd call you a liar and/or a moron.
You're picking apart the logic of a man who is almost unanimously considered to be a flaky weirdo. Fish in a barrel. Just because CNN shows footage of this guy at least 9000 times a day doesn't mean he's actually significant. He's a completely manufactured story.
----------
As I said in the post, this post isn't about Obama, it's about this Wright idiot. And apparently Wright is important because Obama felt it important to distance himself from this guy. And as a patriotic American, I do keep an eye on people who, supposedly sharing my citizenship, exhort my country be destroyed or damned. FDR felt the same way too (see his treatment of the German Bund).
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:54:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:31:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't really agree with the conclusions you have drawn, but there is some truth to the 'chickens coming home to roost' argument, but perhaps some more tact was needed with the timing of his pronouncement.
I say an interview with this guy last night on UK tv, and whilst is preaching is not to my taste, when he is actually just talking without bringing down fire and brimstone, he had a number of good points regarding Cheney et al.
----------
Mister Wright can have all the talking points he likes, I have no problem with that. He can say as clear as day "America deserved 9/11 because they bomb people in the Middle East..." or whatever. He's absolutely free to say that, no question. By the same token, he's in front of the National Press Club, which is a bank of reporters. You'd better be ready to answer some friggin' questions when you get up there. What is this "That nullifies the question" shit? Doesn't this punk bitch have the balls to say what he meant? If we weren't there to hear the whole sermon, why doesn't he explain it?
The answer is arrogance, pure and simple. And that pisses me off. It pisses me off when GWB does it, and it pisses me off when some halfwit ghetto scum does it. That was the point of the whole thing - to get in front of the NPC and answer questions. But Bart doesn't seem to understand that.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This still sucks even if P_C was arguing about the wrong thing.
That stupid nigger isn't worth talking about. There are a million legitimate criticisms of Obama, and this preacher nonsense is not one of them. If you're going to come back and say that this post has nothing to do with Obama then I'd call you a liar and/or a moron.
You're picking apart the logic of a man who is almost unanimously considered to be a flaky weirdo. Fish in a barrel. Just because CNN shows footage of this guy at least 9000 times a day doesn't mean he's actually significant. He's a completely manufactured story.
Vote Nader.
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-04-29 10:31:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't really agree with the conclusions you have drawn, but there is some truth to the 'chickens coming home to roost' argument, but perhaps some more tact was needed with the timing of his pronouncement.
I say an interview with this guy last night on UK tv, and whilst is preaching is not to my taste, when he is actually just talking without bringing down fire and brimstone, he had a number of good points regarding Cheney et al.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-29 09:57:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeh, fair point. I'm pretty wrong here.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 09:52:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-29 09:21:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The 'logic' involved in trying to evoke an emotive response re: 9/11 while portraying an apparent lack of empathy for the 250,000 iraqi civilians killed in a pointless war means that, in some respects at least, ubersite has some sort of moral compass.
----------
Again, when have I EVER said I have no sympathy for dead Iraqi civilians? I have never said that, mainly because I don't think that. If you can find one instance when I seriously said "I don't care about dead Iraqi civilians", I'll +2 every post you've ever done.
Ubersite's so called moral compass has included baby skin condoms and jokes about a fellow Uberer's real-life rape. Are you kidding me, PC?
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-29 09:21:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The 'logic' involved in trying to evoke an emotive response re: 9/11 while portraying an apparent lack of empathy for the 250,000 iraqi civilians killed in a pointless war means that, in some respects at least, ubersite has some sort of moral compass.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-29 08:19:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The removal of this item from the front page is precisely why there really isn't any point in continuing to post on ubersite. A post in which an individual makes a makes a facial expression called "bonkeye" remains up for the duration, but this post, which makes a legitimate satirical point, gets pulled off the front page.
I expected a cadre of morons to weigh in, and I certainly expected a negative rating on the post, but Bart was one of the individuals on this site that I thought would be smart enough to understand what I was trying to say. It doesn't really look that way - either he isn't intelligent enough to get what I was saying (which I must say I don't think), or he didn't invest any thought at all in what the point of this article, which was never about what Wright said, but rather our right to question him about it. Instead, Bart just let preprogrammed emotional responses screen out any logic and pulled it off the front page. If that's what's going to happen, why bother with this website at all? Yes yes, I know, I would hardly be missed. But the fact remains I was making a legitimate point, however crude, and the post got pulled.
Just freaking disappointing.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-04-29 03:08:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I didn't think it was possible to distill douchery to such a concentration...
---
Looks like you managed to distill it into an Ubersite post just fine.
Innocent people do not deserve to die... and 9/11 was certainly a tragic example of the needless death of thousands of people - yet where is your bubbling outrage for the innocent lives destroyed by years of American foreign policy and blatant global manipulation?
Unless you think America is truly without fault.
Which would make you stupid.
You're not stupid are you?
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2008-04-29 02:50:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
America is pure and innocent and was the victim of an unprovoked attack!
Just because his timing was off or his delivery was unsanitized doesn't invalidate the fundamental point of the argument.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2008-04-29 02:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Now I remember why the term; nigger, is still used.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-29 00:16:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh i thought you supported the Iraq war. Sorry.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2008-04-29 00:11:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not siding with him.
Or you.
I just think it'd be great if planes loaded with jet fuel and nice god-fearing christians, crashed into the both of your houses.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
your country goaded the arabs into 9/11.
and those buildings were ugly anyway.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:44:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You seem to think that uneducated Iraqi goat herds deserve to be carpet bombed but because i don't have a complete history of your chest-thumping, nationalistic rhetoric i don't have the right to call you a stupid patriot.
-----
I never said that. Take your medications and you won't hear that.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
how interesting
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:32:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
'Mister Wright, apparently, can suggest that people might just deserve to burn in jet fuel, but because I haven't heard the entire hour of his stupid, anti-American sermon, I don't have the right to ask any questions about the part I did hear'
You seem to think that uneducated Iraqi goat herds deserve to be carpet bombed but because i don't have a complete history of your chest-thumping, nationalistic rhetoric i don't have the right to call you a stupid patriot.
Mind you, i think the phrase "stupid patriot" may be redundant.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
YAAAAAWWWWN
Vote Nader
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-28 23:18:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
At least the reverend is entertaining.