Bloodless Coup

It's also not as fun as scary black men who hate America (or is it just their wives?) who pick crazy Irish Catholics as their running mates. Oh, this is going to be a fun 90 days.

Oh wow. You can't make this stuff up. Favorite line: "Jesus is going to make war on everything that hinders love, with his eyes blazing fire." Apparently the internal contradiction of that statement is lost on them.

And I was already frightened after watching Jesus Camp...

I think this guy must have learned about Jesus from Reverend Wright. Doesn't sound like the kind of stuff I hear from rich...white...people.

Naah, the rich white people kick entire countries in the face for Jesus.

Yeah, the RWP kick teh gays, and the unwed teen mothers, in the face. Well, save one.

perhaps it need not be said that that last comment was me, not morris.

Moon on 8/28:
"Also, characterizing the other side as genocidal is really not the style of the mainstream left."

I think you burst your own bubble here. Are you admitting to being an extremist, or does accusing rich white people of being jack booted thugs who kick the gay community in the face not equate to being genocidal? I know Obama's staffer says Pat Buchanan is a nazi sympathizer, so your party is given to exxageration, without a doubt, and maybe by the standard of someone who thinks Pat Buchanan is a nazi sympathizer but Jeremiah Wright is not an anti semite, or by the standard of someone who doesn't care, everything's still good to go, but there's a thin line between saying all rich white people hate gays, and being a racist yourself. Oh, wait, my bad, that actually does cross the line, but according to Obama's audacity of hope, "white folks' greed runs a world in need," so it must not be racism, after all. Because it's only the rich white people you guys hate. Today.

Speaking as someone who is working pretty hard on becoming a rich white guy... you're off your rocker, Morris. How does "somebody who likes Obama called Pat B a Nazi" equate to "everybody who likes Obama thinks Pat B is a Nazi AND excuses Jeremiah Wright?" I mean, where the hell do you get that stuff?

Do you think these things through as you write them, or are you some sort of far-right magpie, gathering broken bits of invective and argument from a thousand far-right blogs and attempting to string them together into something like a cohesive sentence?

Or are you a bot?

Jacflash: How does "somebody who likes Obama called Pat B a Nazi" equate to "everybody who likes Obama thinks Pat B is a Nazi AND excuses Jeremiah Wright?" I mean, where the hell do you get that stuff?

Everytime someone around Obama says something off kilter, Obama comes out and says, that's not the Reverend Wright I know, that's not the Father Phleger I know, that's not the Tony Resco I know, that's not the Black Panther's version of Timothy McVeigh I know. His people move those who aren't white from behind where Obama's speaking, and where's the back of the bus outrage?, where's the outrage we hear over profiling? Obama says it's just a staffer. Now one of his supporters, Rep Wexler comes out accusing Palin of supporting Pat Buchanan who he calls a nazi sympathizer. And Obama supporters keep standing up and saying, "That's not the Obama I know." Talk about your willful blindness.

Since you're obviously in no mood for glibness, hyperbole, or anything else used in levity by anyone here (although your own outrageous exaggerations, as well as your imputations of errant, unsourced comments to everyone you're debating rather than engaging what the people you're debating are actually saying or intending to say), I shouldn't bother to point out the obvious silliness of your above diversions and digressions, but since the obviousness seems to elude you I will. You know, as a courtesy. While you know exactly what I meant, you'll continue to play like you don't until I say it sufficiently clearly taht you can't cast it as something else. Then, of course, you'll roll out Clinton, or some B-level congressional staffer, or some imaginary strawmen and kick the shit out of said strawman in lieu of your inability to refute what I'm saying, but at least then order will be restored to the universe.

What I meant to say, obviously, is that the churches analogous on the right to Wright's on the left (glad I didn't have to say that aloud), the ones that McCain rightly excoriated when he was busy casting himself as a maverick departure from movement conservatism, as opposed to now when he's trying to convince everyone he's movement conservative 2.0 and he decides to embrace them, those churches save their invective for gays, for people who opt to abort the children they prefer not, or lack resources, to have and raise, and pretty much all other people who don't worship the judeo-christian god they do. I'll listen to someone test the convictions of the rich, whose anger stems from a righteous sense of social justice, before I'll subject myself to the screeds of intolerance based solely on a book cobbled together two millennia ago from apocraphyl bits and pieces -- and at that, on the limited bits and pieces that appear, maybe, seen in a certain light, to express some disapproval of gays, and nonbelievers (and blacks, and rich people, and adulterers, and the covetous, but you know, babies and bathwater). Lest we forget, Wright's theology stems from a tradition of exclusion. Which is no excuse for a contemporary us against them mentality. But at least that anachronism stems from real injury. The Falwells and Grahams of the world use the us against thing just because they can, because it turns out creating that mindset makes them richer than Croesus.

This is not the same as embracing Wright. I'm merely saying that the plank in the right's eye ought to concern it more than the mote in Wright's. Don't worry; I'm not holding my breath.

As for Obama staffer #7, source it or I don't give a shit. And I'll tell you in advance: source it and I still won't give a shit. Because when I characterized rightwing evangelical churches, overgeneralizing as arguments like this require (yet another honest caveat the likes of which you've seldom offered, at least here), I did so based on what I know expressing only my own opinions. And when I make a comparative assessment of Wright's theology and rhetoric to that of predominantly white fundagelical churches, I do so based on my own admittedly limited knowledge, not that of staffer # 7 (anyway, isn't he the one who always gets killed by the end of the episode?).

Seriously, Morris, try talking about what we're talking about on terms that reasonably resemble those of the extant conversation. I'm not voting for, against, or based upon staffer #7, are you?

As for Buchanan, it's as far as I know undisputed that Palin and Buchanan are, at least politically, BFFs. I don't think Buchanan's Hitler. Buchanan's trivial, and always has been -- an intellectual and political pipsqueak who probably can't even keep his kids in line. At best, he's an opportunistic, fairly uninspired, and most definitely intolerant tool, George Will with a more vituperative sense of humor and slightly more ambition. Anyone who's interested in his political fortunes, or will arrange with him some mutual support arrangement, is no one whose judgment or politics I can trust.

All of that said, I'm impressed you quoted one of my four-day old comments, albeit irrelevant and out of context. Seriously, that's the most research I've seen you do in ages.