WTF is wrong with Rev. Wright?

[chequita guevara]

Most pastors I know of have serious ego problems, whether they are good pastors or bad.

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If you'd sacrifice the world for your friend, I hope your friend would be pissed at you.

Obviously you didn't read my answer carefully enough.

I didn't say I'd sacrifice the world. I said I'd figure out another way to save it that didn't compromise my friend.

Family and friends first. World second. Because without the former, the latter means nothing.

[chequita guevara]

Without the world, where would your friend live?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You were mewling something about him just being a good pastor, were you not?

The answer is a resounding YES!

[rah]

Without my family and friends I wouldn't want to live in the world.

Again, a matter of priorities.

The real point being is that what Wright did, is not going to SAVE THE WORLD, but it did throw his FRIEND under the bus. That makes him an asshat in my book.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun

The answer is a resounding YES!

Have you gotten stupider?

Originally posted by MrFun

The answer is a resounding YES!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Most pastors I know of have serious ego problems, whether they are good pastors or bad.

You don't know many good pastors IMO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Great, a "strange new disease". What would they have done then, looked into their crystal balls for answers? HIV wasnt even described as a virus until Montagnier and Gallo's publications in late 83 and mid 84. It wasnt until HIV was found that the epidemiology and basic research could really begin. In fact, hard evidence that HIV was the etiological agent of AIDS wasnt published until much later. Some scientists would argue that we still havent fulfilled Kochs postulates for this disease even today. I'd say the point is moot unless we want to try human experimentation.

And yet, even though some people already figured out what the new disease was doing back in 1980, Reagan and his administration continued to slash budgeting for public health institutions such as Center of Disease Control. In fact, early on in Reagan's first term, he slashed CDC's budget by almost 50 percent.

I'm well aware of the fact that scientists did not fully understand and then have a final name for this disease until 1984. But that does not change the fact that people in 1980 already knew the nature of the disease, even if they did not know all the details of its workings.

Besides, my point is that the Reagan administration, some of the leaders in gay communities, the media, and blood bank organizations all played politics with the AIDS epidemic, or they held onto the attitude of "business as usual" even though by time Reagan spoke publicly about AIDS for first time in 1987, almost 21,000 Americans had already died from the disease. With other threats of diseases in 1970s and 1980s, the American government responded much more vigorously and far more quickly.

[DinoDoc]

Why is Reagan responsible for the irresponsibility of the gay community?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You don't know many good pastors IMO.

Maybe I just use a different definition, since I'm not saddled with a belief in a giant invisible being which takes a person interest in my life.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
He'd be 100% correct.

By your definition, which I suspect is not the common one. Anyway, "I represent all the black churches--except for that church with 'African' in their frigging name, they're not a real black church?" I believe the term for that tactic is "No True Scotsman."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun



And yet, even though some people already figured out what the new disease was doing back in 1980, Reagan and his administration continued to slash budgeting for public health institutions such as Center of Disease Control. In fact, early on in Reagan's first term, he slashed CDC's budget by almost 50 percent.

I'm well aware of the fact that scientists did not fully understand and then have a final name for this disease until 1984. But that does not change the fact that people in 1980 already knew the nature of the disease, even if they did not know all the details of its workings.

Besides, my point is that the Reagan administration, some of the leaders in gay communities, the media, and blood bank organizations all played politics with the AIDS epidemic, or they held onto the attitude of "business as usual" even though by time Reagan spoke publicly about AIDS for first time in 1987, almost 21,000 Americans had already died from the disease. With other threats of diseases in 1970s and 1980s, the American government responded much more vigorously and far more quickly.

**** it, why bother.....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Maybe I just use a different definition, since I'm not saddled with a belief in a giant invisible being which takes a person interest in my life.

You believe in things equally loony. Don't start feeling superior.

For that matter, even if you weren't a commie this would be an obnoxious thing to say.

[Arrian]

You're lecturing someone on being obnoxious?

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Sure.