Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ] |
| Subject: Ok, let me try a second time | |
|
Author: Kylopod |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:07:03 04/01/08 Tue Author Host/IP: pool-71-166-107-132.bltmmd.east.verizon.net/71.166.107.132 In reply to: Rhonda 's message, "Oooh here's another good one" on 04:00:36 04/01/08 Tue I took a closer look at that first essay you posted, and I was struck by the following comment: "Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been--and were--applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement.... But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood." Ouch. To think that all this time we took Obama's speech to be condemning the views of his former pastor. How gullible we were to think so, until Hitchens came along and showed how Obama's word choice suggested nothing of the kind. All Obama did was use words that could just as well apply to speakers of the early civil rights movement. My God! How stupid could we have been to have fallen for this? Except I decided to look back at a transcript of Obama's speech and check Hitchens' quotes. It's true that Obama did at one point use the words "controversial" and "incendiary." Not once, however, did he use the word "inflammatory." But here are some of the things he did say, which Hitchens conveniently neglects to mention: "the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial.... Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country"; "views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike"; "Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems" Let's rehash: "profoundly distorted," "wrong," "racially charged." Of course, it's true that Obama did not use Hitchens' preferred terms "wicked" and "stupid" and "false." Therefore, Obama was going soft on Wright and using language that could equally well apply to Martin Luther King. Right. My only question is how a supposedly respected writer like Hitchens could get away with such a flagrant and obvious distortion of Obama's speech. Like any dishonest hack, he carefully selects the quotes which support his points and ignores the quotes that undermine them. I don't if does this intentionally or is just so incredibly biased he literally sees whatever he wants to see. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Ok, let me try a second time | Jimmy | 13:12:37 04/06/08 Sun |
| P.S. | Jimmy | 13:18:10 04/06/08 Sun |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-14 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |