Steven Anderson, the minister at the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ is a disgusting and despicable human being and an utter and complete failure as a Christian. Anderson recently delievered a sermon titled “Why I Hate Barack Obama”, saying he prayed for the Presidents death.
I may not be an expert theologian but it doesn’t take much to know that this man represents the absolute anti-thesis of what Jesus taught. This man’s message is filled with hatred and evil. Jesus’ message was one of love and compassion.
Instead of praying for the death of President Obama I think this “Pastor” should be focused on praying for his own soul.
#1 Why isn’t this on Drudge?
#2 Do I really care about some nutbags prayers? Are we not seeing the white republicans (was that redundant?) that have been in power for 8 years just fall apart at the seams (or melt like snails with salt on them) or what? I’ve just never really seen anything like what’s happened in America the past several months. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry actually. I mean Dick Cheney has been doing more television interviews than Artie Lange, in an attempt to undermine and criticize an administration that was in power for 4-7 months. How can there even be anything to legitimately criticize at that point. Saying that we are less safe under Obama.
I got news for the retard republicans, in about 12 days, Obama will have kept America safe longer than Bush/Cheney did.
Apparently this guy felt the same about Bush, although he didn’t give a sermon on it (likely because he would have ended up being waterboarded by Dick Cheney in an undiscolsed location). I’m not so much appauled by his political angle as his behavior as a supposed Christian.
as a Christian, this type of thing is scary because it provides an inaccurate image of Christianity to a very wide audience when it hits the media. this guy needs to step down and get back a close relationship with God, if he ever had one.
and as for Sandy Underpants, thank you for showing yourself to be just as bad as this pastor and proving yourself to be a racist. it’s helpful to know a little more about you.
Umm, where did Sandy show himself to be a racist?
Sandy U, is that really true? Snails melt with Salt on them? ;} “I never Knew that.” ~ J. Carson, RIP / But, even ocean-dwelling snails?? By Golly them little saltwater crawlers must have one helluva quick Reproductive cycle. Well I’ll be a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas. 🙂
But as to the prayerful Arizona clergyman, according to AOL News “The Point” (scroll down past the part about Dr. G.F. Will going all Peacenik on us 🙂 ~~
“A spokesman says the Secret Service will conduct ‘appropriate follow-up’ on Anderson and will also check out a member of his Faithful Word Baptist Church who recently made national news. Chris Broughton, who was at Sunday’s service, is the man seen carrying an assault rifle outside the Phoenix Convention Center Aug. 17 while the president was speaking inside.”
(Emphases mine.)
it’s really not very difficult to find the racism. go ahead… find it… you can do it… i believe in you.
and this is off topic from the original post, but since SU brought it up… the implication that 9/11 happened because of something that Bush/Cheney did or didn’t do shows serious foolishness. name something that you liberals were calling for in early-mid 2001 that Bush did or didn’t do that made this country less safe than when he took office. of course you’ll conveniently forget about the 10-15 opportunities that Bill had just in 98-99 to kill or capture Bid Laden… and decided not to pull the trigger because there either wasn’t enough will or he didn’t want to make some people mad in the middle east. that decision has certainly paid off, right? i guarantee you that most of our military leadership would prefer to have Bush leading a platoon than Obama.
Um, pointing out that the GOP has been in power the last 8 years is predominantly white people is not racism, its reality. Not to mention that blatant and abhorent racism that was present at so many of the GOP rallies last election cycle when President Obama was the nominee. The GOP has struggled for a long time now to make minorities feel welcome in their party, thats just an observation not racism.
I guarentee you that most of our military leadership wouldn’t put Bush in charge of a cub scout group let alone a platoon. He has demonstrated through he’s abysmal planning for Iraq not to mention his lackluster (at best) time in the Air National Gaurd that he is not fit to lead military units. Whether or not Obama is is harder to say since we don’t have anything yet to base it on. Bush may be more hawkish, but that doesn’t make you better to lead or a better military man.
you say “um” almost as much as Obama says “uh.”
i guess my faith in you was unfounded… you weren’t able to find it. that’s pretty amazing. what’s the point of even inserting the word “white” in there? is it to state that the only republicans you’re talking about are the white ones? if so, then i ask why the black republicans don’t deserve the same description? there are black republicans you know. one of them is the chairman of the RNC. another one ran for congress in MD’s 4th district. one of my wife’s best friends, and a good friend of mine, is african american and is about as conservative as anyone i know. why don’t they fall into the same category for you? if there’s something they’ve done differently from the WHITE republicans, then i’d like to know what it is. otherwise, it’s flat out racism.
i don’t understand why so many people believe racism is only a one-way street in this country. you talk about racists at GOP rallies. you forget about the fact that a huge reason that our current president is in office is because he’s black. take a white person with the same resume and campaign as Obama, and he wouldn’t have had a chance. you said it yourself… we don’t have ANYTHING yet to base it on.
an argument can be made that most african americans in this country would still be republicans if Roosevelt hadn’t purchased their votes by putting a bunch of african americans in 2nd tier cabinet positions that had nice titles but didn’t really mean much to the administration. and don’t forget that the Civil Rights Act had more Republican support than Democrat.
Affirmative Action is racist, but because it’s not discriminatory against blacks, it’s not considered racist by liberals in this country. what if there were a channel out there called WET… White Entertainment Television. it would be labeled racist before its first broadcast even started. a few years ago, if there was some white high school student to score say a 1400 on the SAT, and then there was a black student from the same high school to score a 1300 on the SAT, the black student would get into the University of Michigan first. explain how that isn’t racism.
The basic Republican belief is that the color of someone’s skin should not matter at all. the Democrat stance is that skin color SHOULD matter. you tell me which is racist.
you want a specific example of an political view that contains absolutely no logic at all? there was a black guy i worked with at my first job out of college, and we became pretty good friends, so we had debates about stuff from time to time when work was slow. he lived in a pretty wealthy neighborhood in CT, and so did a brother of his with his family. i asked him the following question: if your neice (she was about 6 at the time) goes through this highly regarded school system and ends up with a certain GPA, SAT score, etc, and then there’s this dirt poor white girl living in the projects in Hartford who ends up with the same GPA, SAT score, etc, should your neice be given an advantage when trying to get into college, get a job, etc., just because she’s black. his answer was yes.
that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives in this country. and don’t try to give me this argument about the KKK and racists at rallies because that’s the extremist fringe of the party who only support the republican party because they’re rather support IT than the Democrat party which wants to give extra freebies to a race that they hate. you name those people, and i’ll name just as many on the other side… well known names in the Democrat party.
and as for your military thoughts… amusing, yet scary.
First if you have a problem with affirmative action, fine, thats something you can discuss, but its definitely not racist because you aren’t judging the worth of the person based on their skin color. I personally am not a fan of AA in most cases, but the policy itself is not racist. It may be discriminatory, but again thats a different matter.
Second, its laughable to assert that the racists are a fringe group within the GOP. Palin, Limbaugh, et al. pander to those who viewed Obama as a threat because of his skin color and his name. Look at the videos of the people waiting in line at GOP rallies. They weren’t fringe they were plentiful.
There is nothing racist pointing out that old white guys run the GOP. Its reality. And before you throw Michael Steele out, he doesn’t run anything. He’s essentially a figurehead at this point (same would be true regardless of his skin color btw) as long as he and other politicians have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh and kowtow to that blow hard anytime they say something he might not like.
Do I believe that ALL Republicans are racist? Most? No, not at all. But racism is a policy that fits in well with the fear and doubt tactics that the GOP leadership uses. I would even bet that some of the leadership couldn’t care less about race except that they know they can use it to make their base afraid and therefore loyal.
Finally, what is scary about realizing how inept George W. Bush was when it came to the military? The Iraq war has been a debacle. His time in the National Gaurd was a joke. His intelligence is sub-par. I don’t know about you, but if I were a soldier I’d want a leader who was intelligent and aware. Who thought beyond the next step. When I’m in battle I don’t want to just be able to get to the next hill/doorway, I want to finish the whole mission. George W. Bush didn’t have the capacity and/or intelligence to think or plan long term. Not traits I want in a leader.
lol, so you think that something can be discriminatory based on skin color yet not be racist. affirmative action gives, and takes away, access and rights to people purely based on skin color. that’s racism. would you say that the fact that black people weren’t allowed to vote is just discriminatory and not racism?
yes, racists are a fringe group within the GOP… just as much as racists are a fringe group of the Democrat party. most of the Democrat party supports racist government policy, but i don’t think all of those supporters are actually racist themselves. they’re just somehow blinded to the true nature of the policy. Obama attended the church of a racist, was “mentored” by that racist, and only left after his opportunist nature made him leave for political gain. Obama’s wife has said some pretty racist things… though whether she’s actually racist is up for debate. Senator Byrd, Fullbright, Al Gore Sr…. just let me know if i need to continue. again, i don’t have a basis for saying racism is significant in the Democrat party, and you have no basis for saying that racism is significant in the Republican party.
back to the main point though… you never responded to my explanation of what was racist about what SU said. all you did was reiterate your originate statement about what is NOT racism. it was a good attempt at moving the discussion to something else though. again, what have black republicans done differently from white ones that makes it necessary to split them out? try focusing on the issue.
Just for the record:
1) While he was in the National Guard Pres. Bush was not only a fighter pilot, he flew what many consider the most dangerous plane to fly that the Air force ever flew. I’ll set that next to Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and “magic hat” Kerry anyday.
2) While he was attending two ivy league schools, Pres. Bush earned comparable grades to Gore and Kerry, and managed not to get kicked out for cheating like Ted Kennedy.
I’m not a fan of Bush, but I’m a fan of ignorant partisans even less, so….also just for the record, according to CBS’ own panel that examined “Rathergate,” Bush in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.
Gahrie, point one is laughable. Point two is irreverent.
But I think we all need to thank NonSocialist for providing us with some wonderful entertainment.
dcl, yet another liberal who can’t actually respond to points made or questions posed. i’d be happy to hear some legitimate responses to what i’ve had to say… and by legit, i don’t mean that i need to agree… just something that answers the actual question and not some other question, and something with a bit of logic, common sense, and truth. not sure who and how many of you are lawyers, but i gather than many of you are… so i understand if you’re unwilling to stop twisting things to suit your specific agenda. there are plenty of lawyers in congress who have the same problem. i’m sure there are many who are able to avoid that habit, so hopefully you’re part of that group.
NonSocialist. Your questions are entertaining it is true. But they also tend to be beneath the dignity of direct response, mostly for the reasons that they are entertaining. Your arguments thus far have been rather irrational and are fraught with little better than half truths, that same twisty logic you seem to be against. Further you are either unable to think for yourself, or simply being willfully obstinate and confrontational instead of actually putting forth any effort to engage logically with ideas or discussion. Your blog pseudonym belies these issues and predisposes me to think this way about your comments. Your comments themselves only reinforce this position.
The thing is, you aren’t asking actual questions. You are asking questions that are either irrelevant or are willfully misleading or both. You are the lawyer asking the questions of a witness for the other side. The answer to which seems rather “shocking” but is actually utterly irrelevant. Such behavior does tend to sway juries, but it doesn’t make it sound logical argument. Or more to the point you are attempting to be Socratic. The problem with Socrates’ questions is that there tends to be one or more of them that posses certain leaps of logic or logical fallacies that allows him to move on in “defeating” his opponent. Often times the opponent’s position is indeed wrong. But that doesn’t make Socrates’ position right. That is, he thinks in a binary manner on an path of argument that he, himself, sets up. He is smart enough to know how to subtly control the discussion so that his position will win in the end, that doesn’t make him right all the time. You are attempting to control this discussion with all the subtly of a MAC truck. Which is why your questions keep getting ignored.
To answer your question, yes any ethnic group has members that are and or are fully capable of being racist, or [group]ist if you like. Based on any defining characteristic you wish to choose to base that group on. It need not be ethnicity. It could be anything. It could people people who’s birthdays fall on Wednesday. They could be Wednesdayist and feel that all other birthdays are inferior. Two things are true about this. One, this isn’t news. And two, it isn’t relevant to the discussion.
ok, i’ll try one more time. right after you say, “To answer your question,” you proceed to answer some other question. maybe i need to provide my questions in the form of a numbered list in order to help you. here are my 2 main questions:
1) Can you name something that liberals were calling for between inauguration day and 9/11/01 that Bush did or didn’t do that made this country less safe than when he took office? If so, name that thing.
2) What have black republicans done differently from white republicans that makes it necessary to split them out?
Neither questions is irrelevent or misleading. Some liberals have made statements about white republicans and the Bush/Cheney administration, and i’m asking for some sort of logical explanation for why they’re not racist or completely false.
Well, we will start with question two. And answer it with a question. Did you pass any grammar class you’ve ever taken? Let’s talk about adjectives and nouns. adjectives modify or describe nouns. Nouns do not modify or describe adjectives. Which is why your question is a complete fallacy, irrelevant, distracting, willfully ignorant and just plan below the threshold of response. This is a common problem for Republicans. Let me help you out though. Sandy is not talking about Republicans that are white, He is not modifying Republican’s to select a subset of them. Or, for that matter, whites that are Republican, white is not the noun as he has used the adjectival form of the word. He is saying that one of the defining characteristics of the Republican party is that it is white, that is he is describing the noun Republican with the adjective white. I don’t think he picked his terminology particularly well. I would have simply called them WASPs, but that really is beside the point. The point here is that he is not splitting the party between blacks Republicans and white Republicans and being, as you say, racist. No, what he is saying there is one Republican party and it is white and only white. That is to say the problem with his argument is not that it is racist, rather it is that his statement is an over generalizing pejorative of the party. Which is why no one is answering your question. It is stupid, ignorant, and completely irrelevant to the discussion. That is to say it is a distraction, it is meant as a distraction. Or, more specifically. It’s that bullshit lawyer crap you say you dislike. That or you really are just an moron. Again, you are pitching a hissyfit about an adjective that, hopefully, you know is meant as a pejorative descriptor of the party and wasting your time babbling about it instead of engaging with any of the other possibly relevant issues here. I suppose I didn’t directly answer your question. Because doing so is impossible because you misunderstood, either willfully or through ignorance the sentence about which you were asking.
Question 1 is actually remotely interesting. Clinton’s National Security Advisor left a detailed briefing on the Al Queda, Bin Laden situation for the Bush administration. And briefed Bush on the issues. Bush chose not to do anything about it. The exiting Clinton administration, following tradition and decorum, left the new President alone and assumed that he was carrying out his duty as President well. It turns our he was completely derelict and ignored what he was told. The US was attacked and people died. Unfortunately Clinton never had a “firing solution” on Bin Laden. They never knew both where Bin Laden was and that an attack would not lead to civilian casualties. They did attempt to hit targets that would not result in civilian deaths. Unfortunately Bin Laden wasn’t there. When Clinton did this, Republicans also pitched a hissyfit. That’s not an argument that the Clinton administration was some how perfect. They made mistakes. But the Bush administration was completely derelict in their duties throughout the entire 8 years they ran the country (into the ground). Including, as has now been revealed in a lovely new tell all book attempting to manipulating the terror threat level in an effort to win elections.
I hate it when I miss place apostrophes and forget to match tense and number when I change my mind about how to phrase something while being pedantic about grammar… Oh well, such is life.
yeah, it is a bit ironic that you questioned my knowledge of grammar when you yourself not only had poor grammar in your first paragraph but wrote phrases (can’t call them sentences because that would be an inaccurate description) that make absolutely no sense… and it was probably beyond the point of just being due to grammatical mistakes. on top of that, you think my lack of knowledge about grammar is the reason i misunderstoon SU, yet the only way to interpret what he said the way you want to is to assume that he was grammatically incorrect in his wording and actually meant to say something other than what he actually did. regardless, i might have been a bit too quick in labeling him racist, but what he said was indeed racist.
as for your other paragraph, you’ve once again failed to answer the question. you state things like Bush failed to “do anything about it” and “he was completely derelict,” but you didn’t name anything that he should’ve done. it’s not just opinion that the red tape left by the Clinton administration hurt the ability of our intelligence agencies to communicate with each other. it’s the truth, and it’s very likely that THAT was the biggest reason for our inability to prevent 9/11. Clinton wasn’t a far left wing president in general, but his actions related to national defense were as weak as would be expected by a far left president. if you don’t already know, then it might be helpful for you to find out at what point Bush was able to have any budgetary effect on our military and other agencies related to national defense.
I feel that at this time it would be best for both of us to discontinue this discussion. The only place to go from here is increasingly vicious ad hominem attacks. While these can be great fun to write they are deeply unhelpful. At this point it seems we cannot even agree upon the framework of this debate due to what I perceive as a willfully obstinate desire on your point to ignore completely what SU meant by his comment. This discussion can only be circular, and annoying and increasingly vicious so it seems best to leave it alone at this time.