The Ad They Don't Want You to See

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
A bunch of pointless bullshit

So insead of showing some fucking proof, you decide to make a straw man out of Fox, and give me op/ed pieces.

Dude - just admit you have nothing. Just admit you are talking out of your ass. I mean, everyone knows it already except you.

The second two were op/eds.

The first was written statements by the college stating their ridiculous positions.

But I guess you just popped off without reading that, as usual.

This is what you said:

But it’s ok for every Republican candidate to make a speach during election year at Bob Jones University, where they still hate blacks and Catholics (and make no bones about it) ?

I read what you wrote. And you come up short on the proof as in the stuff from Bob Jones actually says they have people of all races at their school. Did YOU read what you googled, copied and pasted?

Just admit you are talking out of your ass because you hate republicans, and you will swallow every little drop of the koolaid simply because of your hatred.

I’m still looking for the overt, “…and makes no bones about it” hatred of blacks. Do the black kids that go there know how much they are hated? ow can they even allow blacks if they are hated so overtly? Are the blacks just that stupid?

[/quote]

How much more blatantly disdainful can you get as saying that someone is “enslaved” by Cahtolicism and calling the Pope the antichrist? That’s about as hateful as one can get in the PR world without a massive backlash coming. As well as having a policy prohibiting interracial dating- again, as backwards and ridiculous as you could get.

Bush even had to apologize to Cardinal O’Connor from NYC. “On February 26, Bush issued a formal letter of apology to Cardinal John O�??Connor of New York for failing to denounce Bob Jones University�??s history of anti-Catholic statements.”

http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/SC/Bob_Jones_University.html

It’s pretty fuckin clear as far as race.
[/i]
"The Supreme Court document further lists the BJU disciplinary rule, which reads, ’ "There is to be no interracial dating. "1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. "2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled. "3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled. “4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University’s dating rules and regulations will be expelled.” [/i]

How much more racist can you get? Is it possible in this day and age? It’s ridiculous and disgusting. And honestly RJ, are you so fucking naive that you don’t know what that’s aimed at? A southern Bible University that didn’t allow blacks until 1971 in the first place bans interracial dating. Hmmm… I wonder what they don’t want from that…

BJU refused to enroll black students until 1971, eight years after the University of South Carolina and Clemson University had been integrated by court order. Late in 1971, BJU filed suit to prevent the IRS from taking its tax exemption, but in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Four months later, on May 29, 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit �??students of any race,�?? a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. In May 1975, as it prepared to allow unmarried blacks to enroll, BJU adopted more detailed rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage�??threatening expulsion for any student who dated or married interracially, who advocated interracial marriage, who was �??affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage,�?? or �??who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University�??s dating rules and regulations.�?? The school appealed the IRS decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the University met all other criteria for tax-exempt status and that the school�??s racial discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, that �??God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage.�??

http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/SC/Bob_Jones_University.html

122

Forget what you think about Hannity. It’s irrelevant. Note that Wright cites with his own mouth James Cone as an inspiration and freely admits that the liberation theology he preaches was spawned directly from the blatantly and self declared marxist liberation theology movement of the 60’s. He says that, not myself or Hannity.

Here is a direct quote from James Cone I stole from one of Bill Robert’s posts so you can write me off as an uneducated gullible ignoramus, but I doubt you’ll do the same with Roberts.

[quote]James Cone wrote:
“If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”[/quote]

There’s plenty more. Cone is a lunatic leftist anti Christian hater and so is Wright.

I want somebody to tell me with a straight face that ANY conscious person can sit under the ministry of a man who declares these inspirations himself… proudly, and not know this is what you’re getting. Oprah left. She knew. Is Obama a brain dead moron or a liar? It has to one or the other. I agree with Roberts. He knew exactly what was going on there and they are his views too.

This man is pulling off the political con job of all time and is only getting away with it because the media just doesn’t report it. The fallout, once again, of all this left wing poison will come down squarely on the heads of BLACK PEOPLE if he gets elected. If I were black I would be praying that this hateful marxist enemy of America does not wind up in the whitehouse and set back black white relations in this country a generation.

Colorless freedom is what makes men equal, not institutionalized racism in either direction.

123

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Even more crap.[/quote]

Do blacks get into Bob Jones?

Interracial dating is not the same as hating blacks. I’m sorry, but it’s not.

You sound like that fucktard Kanye West right after Katrina.

Do I agree with their policies? Nope. Will my kids go there? Not on my dime, they won’t.

But you vilification of a private college is just idiocy. I don’t see you getting your nuts in a vice over Opie’s church. Wanna talk about overt racism? There is nothing to interpret about that guy.

Your sense of justice is horribly skewed.

124

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Even more crap.

Do blacks get into Bob Jones?
[/quote]

There’s 40 there. The government more or less forced them to take in blacks back in the 1975. Without that, it’s likely that there wouldn’t be any.

[quote]
Interracial dating is not the same as hating blacks. I’m sorry, but it’s not. [/quote]

This is kind of like the rebel flag flying over the SC statehouse. It wasn’t raised in 1868, or 1875, or in commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg or even Fort Sumter.

No, it was raised in 1962 as an ever-present, viciously bright “fuck you” to the Civil Rights movement. Could we prove it? Maybe not. But it’s damn likely.

Yes, BJU (great name for any school, by the way), lets in blacks. But that last law was a silent “Fuck you” to the Supreme Court that made them, a last little sliver of pride that they had to maintain.

Kanye’s a pimp. I’m all about it.

I know you don’t, and I know your kids wouldn’t.

[quote]
But you vilification of a private college is just idiocy. I don’t see you getting your nuts in a vice over Opie’s church. Wanna talk about overt racism? There is nothing to interpret about that guy.

Your sense of justice is horribly skewed. [/quote]

I don’t like that either. But there are two reasons that I’m not.

  1. I can understand the anger of blacks towards whites. I don’t know what it is, but I have always felt that any black who was angry at this system was justified for his anger. I’ve said it many times- when you great-grandfather was a slave, your grandfather was a starving sharcropper, your dad got beaten and shot for trying to get the right to vote, and you STILL get followed around in stores because you’re black, you STILL are far more prone to end up in jail, it’s time to admit that this system, or the people in it, have failed to find ways to make the races equal. The inherent anger is not so strange to me.

Does that mean his reverend is justified? No. I don’t agree with anyone who judges everyone under one umbrella, because it’s asinine and backwards. When it comes down to it, a certain amount of personal responsibility is entailed also- people can’t just blame the system for the slum they live in.

However, there’s only so many times you can kick a group in the teeth before they acquire some sort of Hegelian spirit about them and don’t trust you anymore.

Some, like the dumbass Reverend, will take it too far, because if there’s a general distrust, then there will be a few who are loud and obnoxious and outspoken.

  1. People want to pick on Obama’s past relations with radicals and politicians, but conveniantly forget about their side’s indiscretions as well. Well, what do you want? Every politician is likely to become intwined with some less than nice people with some crazy ass views, (if they’re not simply one themselves like Herr Palin).

It’s the nature of the political beast… but please don’t act like Obama was working in the Weathermen’s bomb factory because he knew Bill Ayers.

125

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Even more crap.

Do blacks get into Bob Jones?

There’s 40 there. The government more or less forced them to take in blacks back in the 1975. Without that, it’s likely that there wouldn’t be any.

Interracial dating is not the same as hating blacks. I’m sorry, but it’s not.

This is kind of like the rebel flag flying over the SC statehouse. It wasn’t raised in 1868, or 1875, or in commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg or even Fort Sumter.

No, it was raised in 1962 as an ever-present, viciously bright “fuck you” to the Civil Rights movement. Could we prove it? Maybe not. But it’s damn likely.

Yes, BJU (great name for any school, by the way), lets in blacks. But that last law was a silent “Fuck you” to the Supreme Court that made them, a last little sliver of pride that they had to maintain.

You sound like that fucktard Kanye West right after Katrina.

Kanye’s a pimp. I’m all about it.

Do I agree with their policies? Nope. Will my kids go there? Not on my dime, they won’t.

I know you don’t, and I know your kids wouldn’t.

But you vilification of a private college is just idiocy. I don’t see you getting your nuts in a vice over Opie’s church. Wanna talk about overt racism? There is nothing to interpret about that guy.

Your sense of justice is horribly skewed.

I don’t like that either. But there are two reasons that I’m not.

  1. I can understand the anger of blacks towards whites. I don’t know what it is, but I have always felt that any black who was angry at this system was justified for his anger. I’ve said it many times- when you great-grandfather was a slave, your grandfather was a starving sharcropper, your dad got beaten and shot for trying to get the right to vote, and you STILL get followed around in stores because you’re black, you STILL are far more prone to end up in jail, it’s time to admit that this system, or the people in it, have failed to find ways to make the races equal. The inherent anger is not so strange to me.

Does that mean his reverend is justified? No. I don’t agree with anyone who judges everyone under one umbrella, because it’s asinine and backwards. When it comes down to it, a certain amount of personal responsibility is entailed also- people can’t just blame the system for the slum they live in.

However, there’s only so many times you can kick a group in the teeth before they acquire some sort of Hegelian spirit about them and don’t trust you anymore.

Some, like the dumbass Reverend, will take it too far, because if there’s a general distrust, then there will be a few who are loud and obnoxious and outspoken.

  1. People want to pick on Obama’s past relations with radicals and politicians, but conveniantly forget about their side’s indiscretions as well. Well, what do you want? Every politician is likely to become intwined with some less than nice people with some crazy ass views, (if they’re not simply one themselves like Herr Palin).

It’s the nature of the political beast… but please don’t act like Obama was working in the Weathermen’s bomb factory because he knew Bill Ayers.
[/quote]

Good post. Keep it up.

126

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
See, RJ, this is why “Shit from 40 years ago” matters so much.

I’ve always been heavily interested in the 1960s counterculture movement, and I have mixed ideals about the Weathermen and their ilk.

I would most likely have been supportive of movements like the SDS and the Yippies. I’ve said before also, had I been a black man living back in the 50’s and 60’s I probably would have been one of the most militant guys around, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I was a black panther given the severe oppression that blacks were under back then.

However, the Weathermen took it too far, in my opinion. I understand where they were going- when one is convinced that they are in a protracted struggle with a much more powerful enemy, they will turn to guerilla, or in this case, urban guerilla tactics in order to prove their point, i.e. the IRA.

The killing of government agents at a time like the late 60’s may have seemed worthwhile and necessary for them. I’m not saying I would support them, but given the period it doesn’t surprise me what they did. If nothing else, he stood squarely against his government when they were doing the most terribe and fucked up things in our history. Had I been alive, I may have secretly cheered when a bomb went off at a draft office… sometimes force must be met with force.

That all being said, I don’t care about Obama’s affiliation with Ayers. He was radical in his youth, but turned himself in and has done his penalties.

Quite obviously, I’m to the far left myself, especially socially, so I don’t know why you would think I’d be so upset about this Thunder.

(As far as not releasing the records yet, they were being released last week, and it was put off because of didactions that needed to be made in regards to personnel matters and private info. Sounds like a standard OPRA request to me.)[/quote]

As you say, you’re far left with an understanding (bordering on sympathetic) for the use of violence to make political change in a Democratic republic. Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.

127

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.[/quote]

Why is that?

128

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Even more crap.

Do blacks get into Bob Jones?

There’s 40 there. The government more or less forced them to take in blacks back in the 1975. Without that, it’s likely that there wouldn’t be any.

Interracial dating is not the same as hating blacks. I’m sorry, but it’s not.

This is kind of like the rebel flag flying over the SC statehouse. It wasn’t raised in 1868, or 1875, or in commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg or even Fort Sumter.

No, it was raised in 1962 as an ever-present, viciously bright “fuck you” to the Civil Rights movement. Could we prove it? Maybe not. But it’s damn likely.

Yes, BJU (great name for any school, by the way), lets in blacks. But that last law was a silent “Fuck you” to the Supreme Court that made them, a last little sliver of pride that they had to maintain.

You sound like that fucktard Kanye West right after Katrina.

Kanye’s a pimp. I’m all about it.

Do I agree with their policies? Nope. Will my kids go there? Not on my dime, they won’t.

I know you don’t, and I know your kids wouldn’t.

But you vilification of a private college is just idiocy. I don’t see you getting your nuts in a vice over Opie’s church. Wanna talk about overt racism? There is nothing to interpret about that guy.

Your sense of justice is horribly skewed.

I don’t like that either. But there are two reasons that I’m not.

[b]1. I can understand the anger of blacks towards whites. I don’t know what it is, but I have always felt that any black who was angry at this system was justified for his anger.

I’ve said it many times- when you great-grandfather was a slave, your grandfather was a starving sharcropper, your dad got beaten and shot for trying to get the right to vote, and you STILL get followed around in stores because you’re black, you STILL are far more prone to end up in jail,

it’s time to admit that this system, or the people in it, have failed to find ways to make the races equal. The inherent anger is not so strange to me. [/b]

Does that mean his reverend is justified? No. I don’t agree with anyone who judges everyone under one umbrella, because it’s asinine and backwards. When it comes down to it, a certain amount of personal responsibility is entailed also- people can’t just blame the system for the slum they live in.

However, there’s only so many times you can kick a group in the teeth before they acquire some sort of Hegelian spirit about them and don’t trust you anymore.

Some, like the dumbass Reverend, will take it too far, because if there’s a general distrust, then there will be a few who are loud and obnoxious and outspoken.

  1. People want to pick on Obama’s past relations with radicals and politicians, but conveniantly forget about their side’s indiscretions as well. Well, what do you want?

Every politician is likely to become intwined with some less than nice people with some crazy ass views, (if they’re not simply one themselves like Herr Palin).

It’s the nature of the political beast… but please don’t act like Obama was working in the Weathermen’s bomb factory because he knew Bill Ayers.
[/quote]

If there were to be true equality amongst the race’s, then wouldn’t it have to start with everyone being on the same page with a clean slate?

When there is one race that has “justifiable anger” against another, then it will be impossible for any true equality to be achieved. I personally don’t see the logic in bringing up the past in order to justify the same racist actions (in favor of one race or another) while claiming to be advocating racial equality.

Note: I’m doing homework now, so I really don’t have time to triple read everything here.

129

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.

Why is that?[/quote]

“As you say, you’re far left with an [b]understanding (bordering on sympathetic) for the use of violence to make political change in a Democratic republic[/b].”

130

[quote]Sloth wrote:

To heck with it. I’m throwing an anti-Obama vote, for McCain.[/quote]

Your complaints against McCain are well-registered, Sloth, but I think this is a worthy move.

I’m a realist about presidential campaigns, and as such, I have a vested interest in the candidate that might not even get my vote. I may not ordinarily vote for a Democrat for president, but I want the best Democratic candidate available, as an American who will have to live under his/her governance for 4-8 years.

I may not adore a Biden or a Richard Gephardt (if only), but I respect them as competent adults who can govern with common sense and pragmatism, even if I would vote against them.

Not so in 2008. No such pretense. Here we have a candidate that serves no other purpose than to massage the pleasure buttons of the hipster Left, all the while, in practice, viewing the world via Marxist categories.

McCain may not be a perfect conservative for a lot of voters - but the idea of a godhead Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress is too much to fathom if you have any interest in a republic based on any kind of limited government, democratic principles.

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.

Why is that?

"As you say, you’re far left with an [b]understanding (bordering on sympathetic) for the use of violence to make political change in a Democratic republic[/b]. [/quote]

No, I’m asking what the McCain connection is. I’m not following you.

132

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.

Why is that?

"As you say, you’re far left with an [b]understanding (bordering on sympathetic) for the use of violence to make political change in a Democratic republic[/b].

No, I’m asking what the McCain connection is. I’m not following you.[/quote]

Not much else I can do for you.

133

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Having taken that position though, it leaves you (and all the other Obama supporters) very little room to demonize McCain.

Why is that?

"As you say, you’re far left with an [b]understanding (bordering on sympathetic) for the use of violence to make political change in a Democratic republic[/b].

No, I’m asking what the McCain connection is. I’m not following you.

Not much else I can do for you.[/quote]

Whatever.

134

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The killing of government agents at a time like the late 60’s may have seemed worthwhile and necessary for them. I’m not saying I would support them, but given the period it doesn’t surprise me what they did. If nothing else, he stood squarely against his government when they were doing the most terribe and fucked up things in our history.

Had I been alive, I may have secretly cheered when a bomb went off at a draft office… sometimes force must be met with force.

That all being said, I don’t care about Obama’s affiliation with Ayers. He was radical in his youth, but turned himself in and has done his penalties.

Quite obviously, I’m to the far left myself, especially socially, so I don’t know why you would think I’d be so upset about this Thunder.[/quote]

Preposterous. You are willing to forgive - even cheer on - attacks on government agents as “necessary” to push an agenda to stick it to authority, but your nose is out of joint because Bob Jones University wants to stick to authority by railing against the Catholic Church, but at least has the decency not to try and blow people up while doing it?

Is this like the classic Fighting Irish super-consistency of disqualifying a woman to be president only to insist that we need a less-masculine and more “mommy” approach to the job?

You wouldn’t care if Obama had 20 dead hookers and a an autographed copy of Das Kapital in his closet - you’d blindly vote for him. After having an 8 year conniption over blind loyalty to Bush, you’ve proven you’re no different than the people you used to complain about.

Same for most Obama supporters - I haven’t met a single one who can defend their candidate on the merits, you included. The Democrats could nominate a platypus and you’d think it was the smartest move for the country so long as the animal could be described as “far left!”.

135

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

The killing of government agents at a time like the late 60’s may have seemed worthwhile and necessary for them. I’m not saying I would support them, but given the period it doesn’t surprise me what they did. If nothing else, he stood squarely against his government when they were doing the most terribe and fucked up things in our history. Had I been alive, I may have secretly cheered when a bomb went off at a draft office… sometimes force must be met with force.

That all being said, I don’t care about Obama’s affiliation with Ayers. He was radical in his youth, but turned himself in and has done his penalties.

Quite obviously, I’m to the far left myself, especially socially, so I don’t know why you would think I’d be so upset about this Thunder.

Preposterous. You are willing to forgive - even cheer on - attacks on government agents as “necessary” to push an agenda to stick it to authority, but your nose is out of joint because Bob Jones University wants to stick to authority by railing against the Catholic Church, but at least has the decency not to try and blow people up while doing it?
[/quote]

Wrong. I said that they may have deemed it necessary. My point is that during a time when the government was forcefully shoving people into the army and sending them to a third world country meatgrinder, and then using violence to enforce their draft, why would you expect anything but a violent response?

The violence on the part of the New Left was a reaction to the forcing the general population to go fight in a war that they didn’t believe in. It was reactionary violence. It doesn’t make it right, but it should at least be expected. And if I was about to get drafted to go fight in that abomination called Vietnam, I can’t say I’d be upset if the damn draft office caught fire.

This is apples and oranges with BJU. They are simply a racist university that reluctantly let in blacks and thinks Catholics are going to hell. No violence was committed on the part of blacks and Catholics to warrant the hatred, and there are no specific instances of either of them exercising any type of “authority” over BJU. So their hatred is irrational and blind.

If they had used violence, it would have been even more ridiculous, because again, no crime has been committed against BJU by any of the parties they discriminate against. Their hatred is based off the ramblings of a 2,000 year old novel that has magical gardens, talking snakes, and burning bushes…

Oh yes, far more rational…

Haha. If there was a woman that I agreed with enough, I’d vote for her. The sexist thing is a damn joke. But if it was Nancy Pelosi against McCain, I’d vote for Pelosi. I think you could have guessed that.

Why? Because I defend him against the ridiculous off the cuff comments from a bunch of hardcore conservatives on a fuckin internet message board?

There’s things that I don’t agree with that he talks about, and that the Democrats talk about. I’m not much for socialized healthcare, and I’m not quite sure if I agree with windfall taxes on oil companies. I’m also thoroughly pro-gun. However, my concentration at this point is on foreign policy. I believe he’ll do a better job than McCain will at that.

On top of this, I’m a Democrat. I’m not going to vote for someone like McCain who’s values I don’t share and who’s opinions I don’t agree with.

[quote]
Same for most Obama supporters - I haven’t met a single one who can defend their candidate on the merits, you included. The Democrats could nominate a platypus and you’d think it was the smartest move for the country so long as the animal could be described as “far left!”.[/quote]

You done with your hissy fit now? Way to lose your head amigo. You gotta be more cool, like me.

136

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

To heck with it. I’m throwing an anti-Obama vote, for McCain.

Your complaints against McCain are well-registered, Sloth, but I think this is a worthy move.

I’m a realist about presidential campaigns, and as such, I have a vested interest in the candidate that might not even get my vote. I may not ordinarily vote for a Democrat for president, but I want the best Democratic candidate available, as an American who will have to live under his/her governance for 4-8 years.

I may not adore a Biden or a Richard Gephardt (if only), but I respect them as competent adults who can govern with common sense and pragmatism, even if I would vote against them.

Not so in 2008. No such pretense. Here we have a candidate that serves no other purpose than to massage the pleasure buttons of the hipster Left, all the while, in practice, viewing the world via Marxist categories.

McCain may not be a perfect conservative for a lot of voters - but the idea of a godhead Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress is too much to fathom if you have any interest in a republic based on any kind of limited government, democratic principles.[/quote]

This is the point.

This guy is an abominable affront to the United States, the free world and especially black Americans.

Is this all it takes? Anybody with any African blood at all even if it’s only half? People are willing to sell their souls to a condescending marxist enemy as long as he looks like them… kinda?

If the hate and division between the races is really that bad I fear we will never live together in harmony inside these borders.

137

The last sentence was a joke Thunder, by the way,

138

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Wrong. I said that they may have deemed it necessary. My point is that during a time when the government was forcefully shoving people into the army and sending them to a third world country meatgrinder, and then using violence to enforce their draft, why would you expect anything but a violent response?[/quote]

Let’s see - the Vietnam War was a proxy war to prevent the spread of communism. People disagree as to whether it was right or wrong, but tell me, at what point did democracy fail and violence become necessary?

No, democracy was working just fine - you just loooooove the romance of political violence attacking “the Man”. The Vietnam War was a messy affair, but the policy was still subject to the democratic arena. You just have no patience for it, nor any ability to abide by decisions you oppose.

As usual, a “Democrat” shows us the he is no “democrat” at all.

Nope - you have a reaction, call or write your Congressman. Stage a protest. Violence was unnecessary - the system had not broken down.

What “violence” was inflicted on people who were drafted by the government, a government duly appointed to pass such laws, a government that ordinarily you’d have no problem with having such broad authority?

BJU are racist and anti-Catholic - I never said they weren’t. But they get to stick their finger in the eye of “authority” as much as your 60s radicals, and you have no good argument to the contrary.

[quote]If they had used violence, it would have been even more ridiculous, because again, no crime has been committed against BJU by any of the parties they discriminate against. Their hatred is based off the ramblings of a 2,000 year old novel that has magical gardens, talking snakes, and burning bushes…

Oh yes, far more rational…[/quote]

Detail the “crime” committed against the 60s radicals that were engaging in “reactionary violence”. Name one.

And, we all get it - you are an Irish Catholic atheist. But then, making sense is not what you are about.

Poor Irish - for years, folks have defended Bush against ridiculous off the cuff comments, and you have wet your pants over their defense…now suddenly the tables are turned, and you are as guilty as those that you claimed were brainless sycophants, and it’s “meh”?

Interesting.

[quote]There’s things that I don’t agree with that he talks about, and that the Democrats talk about. I’m not much for socialized healthcare, and I’m not quite sure if I agree with windfall taxes on oil companies. I’m also thoroughly pro-gun. However, my concentration at this point is on foreign policy. I believe he’ll do a better job than McCain will at that.

On top of this, I’m a Democrat. I’m not going to vote for someone like McCain who’s values I don’t share and who’s opinions I don’t agree with.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with that, not at all.

C’mon, Irish - you know I like you, but this coming from a man who is angry for the sake of angry?

139

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The last sentence was a joke Thunder, by the way, [/quote]

No worries, mate - I know you love a good scrap. I didn’t take it seriously or personally.

You may be a radical-lovin’ self-loathing Catholic Left-winger, but I’d share a foxhole with you or back you in a barfight.

Ain’t America grand?

140

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

The killing of government agents at a time like the late 60’s may have seemed worthwhile and necessary for them. I’m not saying I would support them, but given the period it doesn’t surprise me what they did.

If nothing else, he stood squarely against his government when they were doing the most terribe and fucked up things in our history. Had I been alive, I may have secretly cheered when a bomb went off at a draft office… sometimes force must be met with force.

That all being said, I don’t care about Obama’s affiliation with Ayers. He was radical in his youth, but turned himself in and has done his penalties.

Quite obviously, I’m to the far left myself, especially socially, so I don’t know why you would think I’d be so upset about this Thunder.

Preposterous. You are willing to forgive - even cheer on - attacks on government agents as “necessary” to push an agenda to stick it to authority, but your nose is out of joint because Bob Jones University wants to stick to authority by railing against the Catholic Church, but at least has the decency not to try and blow people up while doing it?

Wrong. I said that they may have deemed it necessary. My point is that during a time when the government was forcefully shoving people into the army and sending them to a third world country meatgrinder, and then using violence to enforce their draft, why would you expect anything but a violent response?

The violence on the part of the New Left was a reaction to the forcing the general population to go fight in a war that they didn’t believe in. It was reactionary violence.

It doesn’t make it right, but it should at least be expected. And if I was about to get drafted to go fight in that abomination called Vietnam, I can’t say I’d be upset if the damn draft office caught fire.

This is apples and oranges with BJU. They are simply a racist university that reluctantly let in blacks and thinks Catholics are going to hell. No violence was committed on the part of blacks and Catholics to warrant the hatred, and there are no specific instances of either of them exercising any type of “authority” over BJU. So their hatred is irrational and blind.

If they had used violence, it would have been even more ridiculous, because again, no crime has been committed against BJU by any of the parties they discriminate against. Their hatred is based off the ramblings of a 2,000 year old novel that has magical gardens, talking snakes, and burning bushes…

Oh yes, far more rational…

Is this like the classic Fighting Irish super-consistency of disqualifying a woman to be president only to insist that we need a less-masculine and more “mommy” approach to the job?

Haha. If there was a woman that I agreed with enough, I’d vote for her. The sexist thing is a damn joke. But if it was Nancy Pelosi against McCain, I’d vote for Pelosi. I think you could have guessed that.

You wouldn’t care if Obama had 20 dead hookers and a an autographed copy of Das Kapital in his closet - you’d blindly vote for him. After having an 8 year conniption over blind loyalty to Bush, you’ve proven you’re no different than the people you used to complain about.

Why? Because I defend him against the ridiculous off the cuff comments from a bunch of hardcore conservatives on a fuckin internet message board?

There’s things that I don’t agree with that he talks about, and that the Democrats talk about. I’m not much for socialized healthcare, and I’m not quite sure if I agree with windfall taxes on oil companies. I’m also thoroughly pro-gun. However, my concentration at this point is on foreign policy. I believe he’ll do a better job than McCain will at that.

On top of this, I’m a Democrat. I’m not going to vote for someone like McCain who’s values I don’t share and who’s opinions I don’t agree with.

Same for most Obama supporters - I haven’t met a single one who can defend their candidate on the merits, you included. The Democrats could nominate a platypus and you’d think it was the smartest move for the country so long as the animal could be described as “far left!”.

You done with your hissy fit now? Way to lose your head amigo. You gotta be more cool, like me.[/quote]

Any man that would vote for Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have enough testicle tissue to make a pair of balls for a gnat.