I patiently wait for the day when a news outlet comes along that actually reports the facts...

Man.

I'm a conservative, and I can't stand Michelle Malkin.

I also am so sick of racial... Well... Anything.

I can't stand the bigotry of Jeremiah Wright nor can I stand the bigotry of Pat Buchanan.

I just don't get why it's gotta be a big deal. I mean, if nobody reported on it, I feel like nobody would care, except a few toothless idiots in Alabama (Ok, so I just stereotyped. It makes my point)

I mean, great. Woman or black dude. So what. I don't feel like it shows that we "got so far." Maybe that's because I'm not in one of those minorities.

But I mean, shit. If Pakistan can have a female prime minister, why is it such a big deal globally? If everyone wants to say we're all one big race of people, why the contrast any time you turn on the television?

Anyway, I'd like to think intelligent life can outvote blubbering idiots, but I guess I'm the same person who has no faith in the American public. Ah, what a catch-22.

Apologies for the stream of consciousness.

Whoop dee too. If Obama's poor beginnings had half the press of his skin color, that exercise would be relevant.

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Etymology from etymonline.com: 1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.

Maybe I'm too focused on the dots to see the line.

I differ in my faith. That doesn't make me intolerant. Were I a bigot, I would never be seen at Chez Bryant.

You're telling me JW and PB are civil rights activists?

Yeah, the same way Jack Thompson is a good lawyer.

There are some things I agree with Buchanan on, but many things that I do not. Similarly with Wright, I assume there is something I agree with him on, but I can't stand him spouting his Black Panther agenda. Have you seen the clips of people trying to interview that guy? He's incredible.

Contemplate this series of events:

Wright suggests our government is run by "Rich White People" (A fact that is, currently, undeniable)

He has also suggested the HIV virus was invented by our government to "a means of genocide against people of color" and rationalizes this by referencing the work of Leonard Horowitz (Emerging Diseases: Aids and Ebola) and Harriet Washington's book Medical Apartheid in this video (complete context included).

First off, Horowitz is a quack. Wright should have a little more responsibility as a man in a position of authority to do more research before proclaiming to the world that rich white people designed a horrific disease for the express purpose of killing "colored people".

The accusation is ridiculous.

Look, my point is this. Wright is obsessed with Black Liberation Theology (see his Hannity and Colmes interview if you like) to the point where he is drawing a stark line in the sand between blacks and whites. That is my point. Wright preaches with an admirable passion, but he disregards the fact that his passion will enter into his congregation and that will spill far beyond the borders of equality.

James Cone is a black power advocate. If you read any of his work (really the work of any black liberation "theologian" they put ahead of the Scriptures black liberty, and then back it up with those Scriptures.

I'm not against serving the black community. However, when you draw distinct lines between white and black and say "we're fundamentally different," you're going to breed racism. It's human folly, that's what people do. If we are one race, we need to be one race, not two different races that get along.

From my initial post, and carrying forward my driving point has been the equality of all races, and the disregarding of skin color. The fact that these people feel this need to minister and serve only to the black community says something to me about those people. Wright is one of those people.

What do they do in the inner city where a lot of these people live who need help? The white people who live next door that are in the same situation can't get that same help from the TUCC. Why not?

If -I- were arguing that this liberation theology stuff was a crock, I'd have a leg to stand on... you, on the other hand, do not, especially in the context of bigotry.

I disagree, but it's a different topic for a different time probably with different people.

My point following yours was simply to state that the only thing people point out is that he's black. If people cared that he was poor, that would hold more water with me.

For example, it's more admirable to me that shadowravyn is pursuing a post graduate degree given her humble beginnings than it is that she's doing it given that she has black roots.

In that sense, everyone is a bigot.

Yes, I believe I do. That doesn't make me intolerant of others. If I were intolerant, I wouldn't associate with most of the people I do. There is a difference between having a firm understanding of what I believe to be right and wrong and hating someone because they are different. Fred Phelps is a bigot. I am not.