John Edwards - another bigot attacking the faithful
John Edwards (right)
I wasn't going to comment on this - I'm generally tired of ethnic lobbies like Jews (ADL), homosexuals (GLAAD), and blacks (NAACP) complaining about being insulted. But then I saw what the Edwards campaign actually wrote. Now - I still don't need to comment - all I have to do is quote their words (something the mainstream media won't do)-
Sample comments from Edwards' bloggers:
1. Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
2. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.
3. One thing I vow here and now — you mother****ers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*** without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it.
4. What don’t you lousy mother****ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?
5.Social conservatives, on the other hand, define American tradition as the good old days, when there was no question that men were superior to women, straights were superior to gays, and whites were superior to everyone else. They want to preserve and protect that “tradition,” and, though some of them call themselves culture warriors, mostly they call themselves “traditionalists.”Not only is that shorter than “sexist, racist, homophobic retrof*** jackholes,” but it sounds a lot nicer, too.
6. Da New Pope (as Ezra would say) doesn’t like da faggots. As anyone who’s spent more than five seconds hanging around this joint knows, here at Shakespeare’s Sister, we likes da faggots, and so we don’t likes da new pope.
7. If it weren’t for the fact that this gay-hating bigot was just made head of the largest network of institutionalized homophobia in the universe, that would almost be laughable. A strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, says the former member of the Hitler Youth. Whether he was compelled to join or joined voluntarily is a matter of debate, but regardless of the origins of Pope Ratz’s former Nazi associations, including serving in the German army, they surely gave him the opportunity to see intrinsic moral evil up close and personal. Those f***ers were marching the fags off to the gas chambers, not the other way around.
posted by Puckpan at 4:37 AM
8 Comments:
Outrageous! I had heard about this, but had no idea it was so bad. Thanks for printing.
Caryl
Thanks for the comment Caryl. Yeah its really ugly - all you have to do is shine a light on it. You know the Inquirer won't do it. Hope you are well. Hope to see you again soon.
puck
Puck,
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
First, Jews and homosexuals are NOT ethnic groups. (I hope that you have a smattering of intelligence to realize the differences.)
Second, the Edwards' campaign never posted those statements. An individual hired by the campaign made those statements on her personal blog. It was not a blog associated with the campaign. That would be like stating that your employer holds anti-Semitic views based on the postings on your blog. If you could post an example of a specific entry by Amanda Marcotte on the Edwards' blog showing bias, then you might have something. But then, no such posts exist.
Third, Amanda Marcotte announced her resignation on February 12th, a full week before your post. A simple search on Wikipedia would have informed you of that "trivial" fact.
So your post is factually incorrect, is full of half-truths and contains outrights lies. Nice post. Good thing you don't work at the Inquirer. They would have to issue corrections every day based on your world-class research and reporting.
I think you are over-reacting just a bit. I think the term "ethnic lobby" well-identifies the ADL and GLAAD. I tend to think of Jews as a religious group but many Jews would define themselves as ethnic.
In any case you know what I mean when I use those terms.
The Inquirer smears Christians all the time and never corrects itself or apologizes. But that's because nobody ever apologizes to Christians - certainly not the way they are forced to do so for homosexuals and Jews.
Finally, the only reason the two bloggers resigned is because, for once, the blogosphere exposed something the Inquirer was trying to hide - comments that would never have been made about any other group.
So tell me anonymous - how did the Inquirer react to Mel Gibson's comments (when being arrested and drunk) - compared to the way the Inquirer reacted to the bloggers comments while (presumably) being stone sober? QED
Nice deflection. When challenged, point your finger at the MSM. In this case, the Inquirer. Where in your original post did you even mention the Inquirer? You only addressed one of my points. I'm probably wasting my time, but...
1) Where is the proof that Edwards' campaign made posts on its blog with anti-Catholic comments? That would constitute proof of bias on Edwards' part.
You work for entity X. Unless entity X has a stated position in regards to blacks/gays/Jews, it would be wrong to conflate your opinions with the views of that entity. However, that is exactly what you did when you stated, "But then I saw what the Edwards campaign actually wrote." That was a very disegenuous statement.
2) Your timing was more than a week off. You were crying about Ms. Marcotte as an employee of Edwards despite the fact that she had already resigned.
I'll bet that you read something online on some other blog and just took it verbatim as opposed to doing some primary research. You did not even state who this "blogger" was in your post. So I had to copy one of the statements, google it and then look up who this person was that had written the post. That took me to her blog where I could see a post stating that she had resigned. Took me all of 5 minutes to do the simple research. If you had spent that same amount of time you would not come across as looking like such an incompetent fool.
So I guess that you will respond once again by deflecting and refusing to admit that your posts are full of shoddy research and disegenuous statements. That's essentially all you have Puck. And that is why you are so full of hatred for people that are different from you. You have never taken the time to really get to know someone who isn't like you. How boring!
Gracious! You are as persistent as you are pugnatious.
I don’t have hatred of people different from me - I married a person different from me. You however - have a hatred of people different from you. That is why you are so angry with me.
“Research.” Research? I have opinions like everyone else. But unlike Philadelphia Inquirer reporters I don’t call my opinions - research.
OK look - the campaign may not have made the comments but the bloggers were working for Edwards (deny this - I dare you). I know the connection is tenuous but if someone connected to Mitt Romney had once written a post on Stormfront - you’d make a big deal out of it at the Inky. Right Dick? So politics is a contact sport and I do the same. Don’t make a big deal out it.
I make a good point about the Mel Gibson analogy. And I could have used Jimmy Carter or Mearsheim/Walt as my example. If you offend Jews or homosexuals (or blacks) you can get into real trouble in this society - mainly through the influence of the Philadelphia Inquirer. But if you offend Christians all the Inky does is publish a middle-of-the-road he said/she said article evenhandedly treating both sides.
For the record, Edwards has made a statement about Israel being the most dangerous nation on Earth. That was courageous. It makes me admire him. Courage is a wonderful quality. I might even vote for the guy.
I honestly don't know what the Inquirer (or MSM) has to do with all of this. I responded to your post. I made light of your reply to Caryl by saying that your "research" left something to be desired and that if the Inquirer (since you had mentioned it in your reply) had you as a reporter then they would have to clean your mess up every time you posted articles that that had half-truths and incorrect facts.
Again, you deflect. I'll divert to your first reply. There you referred to Jews as thinking of themselves as ethnic. Sure, if you're an Ashkenazi Jew that means that you share an ethnic background with other Ashkenazis. But there are Ethiopian Jews that have different ethnic backgrounds. One picks one's religion (you might be born into a religion, but you can always change as an adult). But you can't pick your ethnicity (your genes). And how was I supposed to know what you meant when you made the statement about ethnic groups? (I know that you meant "pugnacious" instead of "pugnatious". But that's an obvious error.)
Fine, you want to call what you write here opinions. But to form opinions, an intelligent person bases those opinions on facts. And to get facts, you have to undertake some level of research. Otherwise, if you just spout off what other people state, then you don't really have opinions. You just have other people's opinions. So when you came across the story for the first time, did you do a little research, or did you just accept what the other person had written as fact?
You married a person different from you? What does that mean? You married a woman? Now if you married someone outside your religion (i.e., a non-Christian as I'll make an assumption that you are a Christian) or you married someone outside your ethnic background (i.e., a non-European descendant if you are of European descent), then that would mean you have stepped outside your skin. But otherwise, another nice deflection on your part if, for instance, you are a Presbyterian with English ancestry and you married a German Lutheran.
I think the hatred on your site is pretty evident. It is very clear that you have a problem with Jews.
Me: "... the Edwards' campaign never posted those statements. An individual hired by the campaign made those statements on her personal blog." So why do you ask me to deny what I had written myself? Maybe to deflect my statement that you conflate when you make the point which I repeat here again:
You: "But then I saw what the Edwards campaign actually wrote." That's not a tenuous connection. That's an outright lie. The Edwards' campaign never wrote any of those comments. If someone without any intellectual curiousity read that statement on your blog, they might walk away thinking that the Edwards' campaign really hated Catholics. I only looked it up because it didn't make any sense. Why would Edwards' openly attack a group that he will need to get elected?
Honestly, Puck, you should get a gold medal for the mental gynsatics that you have undertaken to avoid the realization that either intentionally (as a means to tarnish Edwards) or unintentionally (though bad "fact finding") your post was caca.
Sorry if my reference to the Inquirer offends you. But the Inquirer is very offensive to me and I see no problem with criticizing it. Can you tell me why that bothers you?
Anony> you referred to Jews as thinking of themselves as ethnic. ...But there are Ethiopian Jews that have different ethnic backgrounds.
I said "many Jews would define themselves as ethnic." And I'm right. That's why you can celebrate Jewish holidays in Public Schools in America but not Christian holidays. Go to Wikipedia - seach "Who is a Jew" - 3rd sentence - "As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic approach to identity is used." I don't intend to start a "who is a Jew argument" here. But identifying Jews as an ethnic group is a legitimate matter of opinion. And identifying the ADL as a dangerous ethnic lobby is correct and long overdue.
Anony> You married a person different from you? What does that mean?
I was responding to you - "And that is why you are so full of hatred for people that are different from you."
In your original statment what do you mean by "people different from me?"
I'm tired of your use of the "hate" label to change the subject from the issue to me. And I'm tired of your use of that word to avoid arguing about what I say and instead argue about what I don't say.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is guilty of "hate." That's been a standard sleazy debate tactic for the past 3 decades in American life. Fortunately it's impact is wearing off.
You and people like you smear, attack, and insult people different from you - but when we defend ourselves you call it hate. I'm tired of arguing that. I owe it to my children to defend their ancestry, their faith, and their culture from those who hate us. Anyone who calls that hate - is himself the hatemonger.
This is an intelligent blog. I intend to keep it that way. Stop attacking people and stick to the issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home