06-04-2008, 05:03 PM
Quote: Short version: Are neo-nazis nazis? Because if you don't think David Duke is a Neo-Nazi, then I don't even know where to start.Duke is a Neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazi, are a type of Nazi (as long as they believe in Fascism) and more to the point Racist. Does Duke's hate speech result in a positive, non-violent future? I'd say no.
The point that I was making with Wright, and I believe Pete and Occhi are trying to make is that his words if transmogrified into White on Black speech would sound exactly like Duke. Now, Duke is a racist, Nazi, SOB. But, the part that is important is the racist part. The same kind of black racism exemplified by the "Hymie Town" comments of Jesse Jackson. Is Wright a racist? I'd say yes.
My other prior point you refused to see, was that for a religious leader to diverge from the accepted doctrine of his denomination is something that people like Jim Jones did. I'm not implying that Wright is going to haul off his congregation to a Kool Aid party in Guyana, just that its an indication of fringe beyond the fringe when you do that type of thing. By definition, he is a heretic to protestantism, but is he dangerous? I'd say no.
Sometimes fringe is a good thing, when its a new movement towards a better future (American Revolution). Do you really think the "anti-Whitey" rhetoric of Wright is going to result in a positive, non-violent future? I'd again say no.
Back to my original point. Obama used this church for political gain, and denounced it for political gain. You think he's the candidate for change? Because, that is exactly the kind of userous behavior I'd expect from the Clintons. It's all about Obama, and him not facing either the reality of saying "This is who I am, and what I believe", or saying "I really wasn't a believer in either Wright's politics or his heretical Christianity". So which is it Jester?