Hadn’t really thought about it, but now that you challenge me, I suppose it’s theoretically possible. “Yeah, let the Jews have their homeland — and then deport them all over there!” Kind of like the Abolitionists who wanted to end slavery and ship all the blacks back to Africa. Seems pretty stupid, but I guess it’s theoretically possible…

J.

And you didn’t even try to deny it.

You guys get upset when we call you racist assholes, but you have done nothing to try and show you are not racist assholes.

Good God. You’re less coherent than Mister ed. You just write more words to say the exact same thing.

Here, let’s end this debate nice and quick. Fast question — which party’s candidates, from president all the way down to county dog-catcher, typically get a larger percentage of a) the black vote? b) the female vote? c) the Jewish vote? d) the hispanic vote?

You can try and breathe life into dead issues like Jeremish Wright all you want, but there’s a reason why the only demographic Republicans can rely on these days are older white males. And older white males have a habit of getting even older and dying.

So instead of trying to defend your party’s racist history here, I’m surprised you aren’t out there trying to convince blacks and gays and women and so on that you are a party that has any of their interests at stake. Because this is politics, and it’s about getting people to vote for your guy by convincing them that your guy would better serve their interests.

But no, you keep falling back on tired platitudes and letting your party leaders like Rush Limbaugh make a new stupid, racist comment every months or so. (Remember Donovan McNabb?) And you never castigate him for it. You never demonstrate to blacks that you really _have_ put your Atwater-Helms-Limbaugh-Southtern Strategy behind you. Is it because you can’t, or because you don’t want to? Either way, you’re screwed.

Honestly, I should charge you fuckwits for giving out this sort of free advice. You’re welcome.

Sort of. Except you’re leaping to the conclusion that the person who says that is actually telling the truth (which they usually aren’t), where as Wright’s church having white members is a verifiably fact.

Also, Jay, being a “zionist” is swell and all, but what about the Palistinians? Do they have any right to a homeland, or do you think that they should just be culled?

And yes, I am a Zionist — as defined as “believing that the nation of Israel has a right to exist, and the world is a far, far better place with a healthy, secure Israel in it.” Their right to the land dates back milennia (and that’s a confirmed agnostic speaking), they have done far more to develop and improve otherwise-worthless land than any of their neighbors, and they have contributed far more to the world than any of those neighbors. They’ve also been a better friend to the US than any other nation in the region.

It’s been under Democrats that Israel has been most screwed over, and Jimmy Carter is now a poster child for the genteel, civil face of anti-Semitism. It’s his grotesque meddling in the region that has me most pissed off at him (check out the title and premise of his next-to-last book — “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”). And Clinton’s embracing of Arafat led directly to the Second Intifadah.

I don’t blame only the Democrats, though. Every president since Reagan, I believe, has promised to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and it still hasn’t budged. Jerusalem is the official and legal Israeli capitol, and we ought to recognize that. And Bush 43 did better than most, but he still was too eager to make moral equivalence between the Israeli government and Palestinian terrorists.

J.

Credentials? Right. 4th tier pissant blogger. Stateside deferred to this day, I might add.

, but I’ve repeatedly declared myself a Zionist.

Right, Zionism. That’s worked out so swimmingly for the middle east. I remember a place that carried out the same policies as Israel way back when… ah, got it -South Africa.

To point out that Soros has a history of fucking over currencies —
As effectively as Charles Keating?

Thank you. Goodbye.

No, the word “racist” refers to a very specific set of societal rules, norms, practices, beliefs, and laws. There has never been such a system in this country constructed to deny the privileges of white people.

The thrust of that question, if it wasn’t clear, is to get you to tell me why guilt by association is ok when done to conservatives, but not to liberals such as Obama.

You’ll have to ask someone who practices such.

Heh – isn’t that like the oft-used example of a white person saying, “I’m not racist, I have black friends!”? Anyway, I get it Quaker – the word “racist” is very nuanced when applied to your ideological allies, but not your foes. Now, if you’ll stop trying to pidgeon-hole on the word racist, would it make you feel better to change my original question to:

“Ah. So if I conlude that Obama is a bigoted asshole by virtue of the fact that he “laid down” with Wright for some 20 years, you’d think I was being fair to Obama, yes?” Or perhaps prejudiced asshole? The thrust of that question, if it wasn’t clear, is to get you to tell me why guilt by association is ok when done to conservatives, but not to liberals such as Obama. Jaim took a pass at it, hows about you?

If you’re accusing me of applying a double standard, you might be more specific.

A tempting offer, but decorum forces me to demure.

Mr. Wright’s church has white members. He has been invited by presidents past to visit the White House. Yes, if someone wishes to call him racist, I’d like to know, specifically, what occasions that judgment.

“Embraces black liberation theology” might prove a fruitful avenue to prove your point. Still, I’d like to see specifics on what is being called “racist.” The word is not a synonym for “bigoted” or “prejudiced.”

Chris Rock nailed this the first time around:

“A 75-year-old black man who hates white people. Is there another type of 75-year-old black man? Do you realize his whole third grade class was lynched?”

That Chris Rock guy really oughtta take a stab at the comedy thing. He’s funny.

By the way, the Jeremiah Wright Trump Card is the lllllaaaammmmmeeeeesssstttt trump card ever. Epic lame, it is.

Who’s tongue tied? You keep on keepin’ on defending racist assholes (Coulter, Limbaugh, et al) and the Racist Asshole Strategy. Unless and until that changes, then racist asshole is as racist asshole does, dig? Oh, and in case you missed it further upthread, J.D. Hayworth is an anti-Semitic asshole. Would you like to keep on keepin’ on defending him too?

Hold on. In just about every thread regarding race on this site, you guys fall all over yourselves telling us that one doesn’t need to hear explicit things like, “whites are better than blacks” in order to know that someone (especially if they’re republican) is racist. Now, all of a sudden, it’s changed to “hey! the standard of proof is an explicit statement stating that one race is inferior to another before someone can be considered racist.” I’m very surprised at this turn of events! Double standards much Quaker?

You’re right though, he hasn’t made an explicit statement like that – I’m making the not unreasonable assumption that a guy who embraces black liberation theology and rants about how rich white people just love to oppress black people probably a. stereotypes white people on a regular basis b. doesn’t like white people that much in general on account of the color of their skin. Call me crazy.

Is saying that racist, Mr. Tea? Please explain.

No, no. Not “here’s some other guy…” You gotta give me, “Here’s Mr. Wright…” And I don’t mean, “Here’s Mr. Wright saying something that upset some white people,” either. You gotta show me, “Here’s Mr. Wright urging a society that judges white people to be inferior and worthy of lesser rights.”

Let’s have it.

Arguable, but I’ll let it pass. You’re equating “race-baiting” and “racist”?