Liberalscum Buster

April 26, 2008


Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 8:29 pm

Anyone who extracted those snippets had to have known that what they cherrypicked was not representative of what Wright had been saying. Whoever put together that piece was deliberately intending to deceive. The networks who played and replayed that piece , without looking at the context participated in the perpetuation of that deception.



  1. Tell me where saying the Lord’s name in vain is ok for a pastor to do! Tell me that he was being racist when he said that we cling to our guns cause we’re bitter and not like him. Not like him? Thats racist my friend!

    Comment by goodtimepolitics — April 26, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

  2. goodtime politics I invite you to watch the Bill Moyers interview.

    If you are intellectually honest with yourself you should agree that the snippets that were played and replayed were not representative of what Wright had said.

    You will probably never admit that because you have an axe to grind .

    As you can see above, I was critical of Wright when I posted that Wright was giving
    God a bad name.

    It was very enlighening to see his words in context.

    Comment by gasdocpol — April 26, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

  3. That was a fascinating interview. By the time it was over, I was thinking, if I had a Pastor like that, I might not have left my church. Everyone needs to see that interview. Especially people like goodtimepolitics, who truly DO use the Lord’s name in vain, by calling themselves Christians.

    Comment by Kurt — April 26, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

  4. kurt

    lol I never thought of that . Hypocrites who call themselves Christians are using the name of the Lord in vain.

    Matthew 6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

    Comment by gasdocpol — April 26, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

  5. Sir, have YOU heard the full sermon in full context for yourself?

    Here are more than just “snippets” you speak of…it is much worse to hear it IN context. IMHO

    I was quite appalled when I heard Rev. Wright made derogatory inference as “Condoskeeza” Rice! FYI – “skeeza” means – whore, slut, skank, etc. []
    Quite a rude statement coming from anyone…from a pastor at the pulpit is beyond comprehension.

    But of course, turning a blind eye to an obvious flaw is just as easy an action, I suppose…

    Comment by nonblondqt — April 27, 2008 @ 3:05 am

  6. nonblondqt

    OK I saw the Bill Moyers interview which included those incriminating snippets in context.

    I have not had a high opinion of Condi Rice since she spoke of mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes that could only be used for enriching uranium.

    Comment by gasdocpol — April 27, 2008 @ 3:23 am

  7. Yesterday I combed the internet looking for a single article about the Rev. Wright‘s interview and I could not find one single article in any of the MSM. I wondered if they ashamed of their behavior after they saw the interview. I knew that his words were taken out of context and never understood why they would continue to make such hateful allegations if they actually listened to the sermon. Who is charge at networks?

    I am beginning to believe that we have gotten to a terrible state in journalism where no research is being done at all. Its shameful propaganda and devious at best. I also find that it’s disrespectful to the American people to spin a well meaning sermon into propaganda for nefarious purposes. There should be a public outcry for Hannity to resign! He lied and continues to do so. Where is the angry now?

    I think the best line in the interview was when he said that if all you ever knew of Jesus was a continuous bit of him flogging the merchants out of the temple we would have a different impression of him. I said “AMEN”

    Comment by No Nonsenses — April 27, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

  8. No Nonsense

    Actually there is no law against disorting facts which can adversely affect the course of history. So those who are responsible for those misleading snippets have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

    Fortunately, some credible people who have honesty and integrity will see the remarks in context and help neutralize the damage that is done.

    Comment by gasdocpol — April 27, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

  9. And a “defamation” of character lawsuit would be considered unchristian by not turning the other cheek

    Comment by No Nonsenses — April 27, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

  10. No nonsennse

    Public figures are not subject to the laws of libel and slander.

    If you lead a blind person to an elephant and allow him to only feel the elephant’s tail, that blind person would have a very distorted impression of what the elephant is like.

    When I saw the snippets of words that Rev. Wright actually did utter, I got exactly the same impression that everyone else had gotten of Rev. Wright.

    The Bill Moyers interview of Rev. Wright needs to be seen by everyone profesing to have an opinion of Rev. Wright.

    And more imortantly , even if one continues to have reservations about Wright, I submit that it is not valid or reasonable or sound reasoning to attribute whatever point of view that one has decided that Rev Wright has to Barack Obama.

    There are layers of deception in the contention that Obama damns the USA.

    Comment by gasdocpol — April 27, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

  11. Comment by gasdocpol — April 27, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: