This has to be most vile and disgusting 12 minutes and 32 seconds in the history of all television, evar! But watch the whole thing anyway, it's strangely amusing.
America's Favorite Hater, Pastor David Manning was on last night's episode of FauxNews' Hannity and Colmes defending his criticisms of Barack Obama. Never mind the fact that Manning absolutely makes no sense whatsoever, that's beyond the point.
Instead, pay attention to the suddenly saintly Sean Hannity, who "comes to Obama's defense".
Yes, Sean Hannity is sticking up for Obama, telling Manning not to "get personal" and that "Obama's family is off limits". This has to be the biggest crock of bullsh*t I've ever heard.
My "No Politricks Fast" begins Sunday, so I listened to the Sean Hannity Radio Show on my way home from work yesterday. This guy spent a solid 15 minutes calling Michelle Obama everything short of an America-Hating Whore. He constantly calls Obama to task for being dishonest and misleading the American people because of his 20 year relationship with a "racist hate mongerer" like Jeremiah Wright. Yet, suddenly I'm supposed to buy the fact that Hannity thinks it's wrong for David Manning to absentmindedly talk greasy about the man when Hannity just finished spending the whole day doing the same thing?
Wigga Please!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you don't watch or listen to conservative media, you should. Not for the hosts, but specifically for the callers that take the time every day to dial-in and agree with this kinda bullcrap. These folks are still upset, not just about Rebb'n Wright, but still furious about that urban legend that Obama doesn't recite the pledge or put his hand over his heart.
Yes, folks, this is what we're dealing with in 08'.
The oh-so-obvious Grand Hu$tle here is that Hannity (and Fox) brought on an idiot like Manning to not only set Obama, but the prospect of black people in positions of authority back, period. There's no way a supposedly reputable news organization (sigh) would invite a crackpot of this sort on to discredit John McCain. I am willing to bet once the cameras went off, Hannity graciously thanked Manning for this cluster, patted him on the head, and gave him a Metrocard and $5 for some Gray's Papaya on his way back to Harlem. Also, you gotta love the subliminal message of the Pulpit Politics backdrop behind these idiots. Nice job of lumping Manning right in there with Wright and the rest of the Black Church.
Fox News: Fair and Balanced, indeed.
This whole thing would be kinda funny if there weren't lots (and I mean lots) of people watching it and believing every word of it. And that, my friends, is quite scary.
Question: What did you think of this Fox News Minstrel Show? And since I'm on the topic, can one of my NY peeps tell me if ATLAH is actually a real church that just discovered Youtube or some kinda election year scam?
Hannity Hypocritically Defends Obama [NewsHounds]
Pastor Manning's Website [ATLAH.org]
Friday, March 28, 2008
Rebb'n Manning vs Sean Hannity: BloodSport II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
20 AverageComments™:
Things Hannity hoped to accomplish with this interview:
1. "See, black people are the worst racists in the world! Just look at how he talks about Obama's white mama!" And that's truly what the problem was, not talking about Obama, but calling his mama trash (which, if it's not clear, completely disgusts me).
2. "See, I'm not racist! I stand up for black people being personally attacked!" (But only when the attack comes from another black person.)
3. "See, black people are UNFIT to lead anything!"
Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the like are skilled at pimping the community the serve. They are aware that racism exists and they are getting rich off of that racism. As we all know, they have their code words. The don't have to use the "N" word. Sean Hannity always uses ignorant black folks like Rev. Manning and his favorite is the Rev. Jesse L. Petersen. How Hannity and Petersen refer to each other as friends is absolutely laughable.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Hannity's not a good actor. I can't believe that Pastor Manning's for real. I'm so ready to take a train ride to this "church."
Cosign with everyone here.
Here's something else to think about: most of those watching these clowns (Hannity and O'Reilly) are white.
These two know their audience:
Whites still have an appetite for Minstreal shows, and they know it.
"Whites still have an appetite for Minstreal shows, and they know it."
Again with the racist commentary.
Blacks have an appetite for watermelons and fried chicken, and they know it.
Those of you who are now pissed off at me: why is my statement insulting, and his isn't? Racism cuts both ways. Those of you who rip on Hannity for race baiting but defend Wright for, er, race baiting, are being hypocrites.
I swear, the cognitive dissonance is deafening. Can people not see this? Seriously... how can you defend Wright because he was speaking within a social context that isn't understood, then attack Hannity by accusing him of speaking code words within a social context!
By the way, those of you who somehow got one of those White People Secret Decoder Rings, can you send it to me? I lost mine somewhere and now I miss all these code words... besides, The Man will come give you AIDS and crack and steal it from you, if you don't get rid of it quick.
@ spool32,
The indignance you are showing right now shows me how unbelievable it is to you that people, after all this time, and all the many ways in which you, and other well-meaning folks, have expressed your view of racism, still don't get it. Please consider for just a second the indignance that people of color in this country must feel when they continually and in large numbers talk about the ways in which racism has cut THEM, and society, for the most part, continues to pretend those wounds aren't real.
Please consider, for just a moment, that this government has been complicit in many, many horrible events against African-Americans, such as purposely deceiving them into believing that they were being treated for a serious STD (Tuskegee, anyone?). Whether it rings ridiculous to you personally, the spread of HIV in the black community reminds LOTS of us of that little experiment.
Do I think that the US government is injecting black people with HIV/AIDS? No. But do I think it's a completely irrational and unfounded fear? Hell no!
I'm able to see your frustration, your pain, and where it stems from. I just ask that you try to do the same, without calling me a hypocrite.
@spool32:
Blacks have an appetite for watermelons and fried chicken, and they know it.
The truth stepped on your toes, got under your skin, spat in your face.
Why, my enlightened friend of everything black and white, would Hannity give air time to this not very Reverend Rev. Wright?
Why?
Because it will entertain a certain segment of our society, and perpetuate certain stereotypes.
And that segment is not black.
Hell, how could we get away here with anything racist?
You're the white monitor and "mind police" here, making sure all us "darkies" get called out if we stray too far, and show whites in a bad light.
Somehow you believe that you have a sworn duty to keep us "darkies" in line, to remind us, in a righteous, and indignant tone, of our own racist excesses:
Hence, your counter comment:
Blacks have an appetite for watermelons and fried chicken, and they know it.
If you would protect what's right, rather than what's white, then we'd have no argument, no quarrel.
But you've drawn a line in the sand, and we know what side you'll stand on when your kind gets attacked.
Also@spool32, with a sanctimonious air:
The Man will come give you AIDS and crack and steal it from you, if you don't get rid of it quick.
When the government believed that only gays would contract AIDS, it looked the other way, while many died.
But, then, it was just a scourge against gays.
When this government, that you worship, began to see that other than gays were contracting it, it began to take a closer look.
I said:
Whites still have an appetite for Minstrel shows, and they know it.
I said this from O'Reilly's and Hannity's perspective, not yours, nor mine.
But I'd like to know how many whites e-mailed the show to complain about Rev. Manning.
Did you?
I willing to bet thousands of blacks did, including myself, but you wish to convince us here that you're for what is right than what is white.
I'd say you're a hypocrite. You're a white sheep pretending that your wool is neutral on all things racial.
And the following:
By the way, those of you who somehow got one of those White People Secret Decoder Rings, can you send it to me? I lost mine somewhere and now I miss all these code words...
It won't do you any good to find it. It was a cheap model to begin with. You need the up-to-date, improved model. It's the only one that will hip you to all those new codes.
Just so you know, since you're so eager to brand me as a racist, I defend neither black nor white, I defend humanity.
You, on the other hand, show a penchant for defending all things white, rather that humanity.
This tells me one thing...you've lost yours.
Heh, I knew somebody would flip out. I love the simultaneous personal insults, attacks on straw men, denial, dishonesty, and general foaming at the mouth. I planned to respond, but there wasn't a point in there to address... just a load of bile spewed all over the comments. If you want to know my "kind", though... it's intelligent people who try to think past the notion of "my kind", especially when that notion is shaped by what color my skin is.
You should try it sometime.
@i.i.l.:
I'm with you. I hope I've demonstrated that in the past, here and there on this blog... at least I've attempted to. Re: Tuskegee, I can see where it would absolutely make people more prone to believing conspiracy theories... the study only ended 36 years ago, we're not even one generation removed. I don't think you're a hypocrite.
I'd accuse Anonymous, but who the hell knows who it is! ;)
@Spool32:
"The Man will come give you AIDS and crack and steal it from you, if you don't get rid of it quick."
You have here, and other places, belittled the good Rev. Wright for saying what many are asserting are anti-American claims:
that the government is responsible for the AIDS epidemic, 9-11, and the distribution of drugs in the ghetto.
Now, I'll ask you: "Can you handle the truth?"
Or, which pill are you willing to take, the one that will open your eyes, allow you to follow the white rabbit down the hole, or the other one, the one that will return you to the matrix of your illusions?
Rev. Wright is lambasted for making the claims above, but others have made them, and they come from disparate offices, with varied degrees of believability, and credentials.
On AIDS: check out this article.
It attempts to denigrate the claims, but reveals some of the leading proponents (from a British Journalist to an academic) holding the belief that AIDS was man-made, and that government may have played a key role in its introduction into the populace.
AIDS conspiracy theories: a field guide. - By Juliet Lapidos - Slate Magazine
On 9-11:
Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut
This video can give the hardened critic and skeptic cause to pause.
Watch it in its entirety, if you dare.
But if you're still idolizing this country, rather than loving your country, and not willing to spank it from time to time as you would an intractable child, and not idolize it so that you can't see its faults, take the other pill, and go back to your illusions.
On cocaine:
Concaine Import Agency. AKA The CIA
This post is not an attempt to persuade you in any direction, but to encourage you to take a closer look at our government, and to take off your rose-colored glasses of national idolization to entertain evidence that might just support the good Reverend's so-call controversial, and anti-American positions.
Although this post is directed toward our resident white critic, I would encourage all visiting here to check out the three links above, especially the ones on cocaine, and 9-11.
@spool32:
"If you want to know my "kind", though... it's intelligent people who try to think past the notion of "my kind", especially when that notion is shaped by what color my skin is.
You should try it sometime.
Like you just did.
You're characteristially dismissive of any position that's not your own.
And, I'm afraid, it is you that bring color to the table, and pretend that you're above it.
I say again: you're mired in it to the exclusion of a broader view, that of humanity.
Just so you know, since you're so eager to brand me as a racist, I defend neither black nor white, I defend humanity.
You should try it sometime.
Pointing out racist opinions doesn't equate to being mired in them, nor to "pretending". Honestly, I'm not dismissive of positions other than my on... to the contrary, I value highly the range of perspectives here - I'm a broader thinker for the posts and comments I've found here, which is why I keep coming back.
I'm just dismissive of your position, shonuf. It's full of prejudiced attacks, dishonest false arguments, and plain ignorance.
In particular, linking to Loose Change ought to tell everyone just what sort of critical thinking skills you possess... the poorly exercised and underdeveloped sort. I've watched it twice, and read the host of sites debunking it in detail. It's a propaganda video and the Holy Bible of 9/11 Truthers.
You've called yourself out as a wingnut just by mentioning it. Congratulations!
Main debunking site
If you feel you must subject yourself to the movie, be sure to print out the Viewing guide to Loose Change and refer to it as you go along.
Top lies in Loose Change:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Brother Average, this is another example why Black Americans should get into the mainstream arena with their own TV/radio stations. We continue to try and mold our conversation into something that is acceptable to majority America senses. First, I contend our leval of digust/acceptance is different than the "typical" majority. What some pastors preach on Sundays may come after a Saturday night when some "unarmed" Black male has been 'accidentally' shot in the back by the local guardians of peace. So his Sunday morning conversations may be designed to assuage the constant pain some of us experiance by living in Amerikka. There is an America that a majority of us just don't get. If you look at the TV, your mind could not fathom what I see and believe thru my mind. Therefor we listen to a lot of pastors knowing Monday mornings we have to put on our other face/mind therefor if the majority could only understand --I may need my pastor to scrap at the worst in my psyhic.
@spool32:
"It's a propaganda video and the Holy Bible of 9/11 Truthers."
I knew you were far too smart to fall for something like a "propaganda video."
Your intellectual superiority would certainly see through any attempt to pull the wool over your eyes.
And surely its a mental mine field for "wingnuts", and the "plainly ignorant" ones among us.
It must feel good to feel superior.
Ad hominem attacks, aside (you've certainly indulged in them ad nauseam), the 9-11 scholars would certainly love to hear from you, since you could set them all straight. (Many of them, did I mention, are experts in their own field.)
I'm sure that they would welcome your own special knowledge in these areas.
Scholars for 9-11 Truth
Additionally, it appears that you're hyper-focused on your superior intellect, as though somehow it gives you some elitist advantage over us less-fortunate, ignorant types.
Check out your preoccupation with intellect, and intelligence in general.
It's a tell.
You would make William Tell proud.
1. If you want to know my "kind", though... it's intelligent people who try to think past the notion of "my kind"
2. I'm a broader thinker for the posts and comments I've found here,
3. ...what sort of critical thinking skills you possess... the poorly exercised and underdeveloped sort.
4. You've called yourself out as a wingnut...
5. I'm just dismissive of your position, shonuf. It's full of prejudiced attacks, dishonest false arguments, and plain ignorance.
You know, spool32, I have read many of your posts, and not once have I read where you have supported any position generally held by blacks here on this blog; not really.
Check this out:
I'm with you. I hope I've demonstrated that in the past, here and there on this blog... at least I've attempted to.
What is this "at least I've attempted to"?
Either you did or you didn't. An attempt is not a "did". I don't care how you cleverly phrased it.
You're not interested in black positions, viewpoints, or opinions.
You've demonstrated an almost rabid eagerness to show us up, to put us down, to show off your masterful use of the English language and, yes, your superior intellect.
And for what purpose?
Could it be, as I implied earlier, you take some kind of sadistic delight in besting your opponents, demonstrating your polemic skills, your semantic nimbleness, and indulging your didactic fervor?
You have cleverly avoided my key point: your being an apologist for all things white.
As I've said: I defend neither black nor white, I defend humanity.
If you were less focused on defending the indefensible, and more on truly understanding the positions proffered here, your comments and opinions might enjoy a greater reception.
But, I don't think that that is why you come here.
You come with an olive branch, feigning support for racial equality, harmony, and acceptance, while at the time using the space here to attack with righteous indignation, whenever you believe we have tread heavily and unfairly upon whites.
Surely you can advance the cause of race relations with greater success by being less combative, less caustic, and less insufferable.
You know what I think? I think you're a fraud.
Time and again, you have sought to make us wrong, and white right.
Time and again, you have reached for some moral equivalence to substantiate white right over black intolerance.
Time and again, you have shown your true color with unabashed glee.
Perhaps you should play it safe: rabbit holes are fraught with risk and peril.
The matrix is, after all, vastly more safe....
I'm comfortable claiming superiority over Truthers, including Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In a world where Ward Churchill and 40-odd members of Duke are all still employed by a university, simply holding a degree doesn't sway me.
Now that you've dug the point out of your rant, namely that I'm somehow present here to attack black commenters who attack white people, you're going to have to quote or link. Assertion doesn't equate to truth, and given that you're a 9/11 Truther, a declaration (unsupported) from you that I'm a fraud is pretty meaningless. The truth is just the opposite - I've attacked racist comments, without regard to what race they were targeted toward.
"Time and again, you have sought to make us wrong, and white right."
Sometimes, people posting here are wrong, myself included. To claim that pointing it out is racially motivated is just silly. As for the "white right" comment, I deny it. You're going to have to come up with something to demonstrate that. You're welcome to believe it, but then you apparently believe a lot of crazy shit.
By the way... the matrix was just a movie.
@spool32:
"By the way... the matrix was just a movie."
You wish!
You said:
"Pointing out racist opinions doesn't equate to being mired in them, nor to "pretending"."
You know spool32 I've never called anyone posting here a racist, no matter how outrageous their comments. Yet, you show no reticence in doing so.
You casually throw it about with far too much ease and abandon.
You could have called my remark about O'Reilly and Hannity tactless, misinformed, anachronistic even...but racist?
It seems you leaped to this conclusion with an alacrity that belie your true intentions; in your own words:
"I've attacked racist comments, without regard to what race they were targeted toward."
@spool32:
"As for the "white right" comment, I deny it. You're going to have to come up with something to demonstrate that.
I don't have to go that far into recent history to illustrate my claim:
Having seen a few video-snippet portrayals of Rev. Wright, all taken out of context, you remonstrated the wisdom of Obama's continued membership in Wright's church:
spool32 said...
"I would expect any man who intends to lead this country, when told by a preacher that people should be singing "God Damn America", to get up and walk out. Where you or I might be able to get away with sitting in a pew while the preacher shouts some racist divisive rhetoric and thinking to ourselves "I don't buy into this crap", I think it's fair to expect that a President would take more, shall we say, affirmative action in the matter...."
Bold type added for emphasis.
Again, you take the assumptive position that Rev. Wright is a racist.
You don't reserve judgment, but freely opine about Rev. Wright's "wrong," Obama's duty, and the expected course of action for a president.
On another post you supported a liar over a conspiracy theorist this way:
"I'd rather have the liar, honestly. The Conspiracy Theorist displays a fundamental inability to process facts, think logically, and discern truth from fiction. He's easily duped, and lacks the ability to differentiate between correlation and causation. This is a disastrous quality in a President."
You seem to be describing here President Bush. Now, no one has labeled him a CT, just a liar.
I'm not here to discuss the merits of your argument on that post, but to point out the extent to which you'll go to make white right, in this case Senator Clinton.
@spool32:
"You're welcome to believe it, but then you apparently believe a lot of crazy shit."
You'd be surprised how much "crazy shit" I do believe.
Shit that would curl your toes to contemplate; but, do you want to know what's more shocking than whether I believe it or not--the fact that it's true.
If blacks have one up on you, it's that we don't take everything we see and hear at face value.
We have our history here in this great country of unsurpassed freedom to thank for that.
I distrust governments, especially those seeking to concentrate power--Homeland Security, and the recent push to expand the role of the Federal Reserve, being two prime examples.
The Bush administration will propose Monday that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, ...
I'm willing to bet this proposal hardly caused a ripple in your thought processes; you didn't bat an eye.
I may not know much, but I know enough not to trust governments' erosion of freedoms.
We blacks have seen so little of it in actuality--just in name only.
So any threat thereto raises our hackles, set off our bullshit alarm, and arouses our self-defense mechanism.
You, on the other hand, are a frog in slowly boiling water--you'll provide the main course for an overreaching government, with a ravenous appetite for eroding your precious freedoms.
You know what brought Governor Spitzer down--the Patriot Act, with a stated goal, among others, of tracking the financial wheeling and dealing of suspected terrorists.
Yet, it was used to nab this governor. Does this bother you?
As it turned out, he was no terrorist, merely trying to keep affairs with call girls under the radar.
So live comfortably, sumptuously, and naively in the warmth and luxury of your matrix.
But don't forget:
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
As to your first example: before I commented, I watched every piece of footage I could find, including two entire sermons, and read both the current version of the church's website and the version archived at the Wayback Machine, before they scrubbed a lot of the afro-centric content from it. I even linked to the wayback post, and asked a couple of questions about what "Middleclassness" meant, to which I had no reply. So your assertion that I commented after watching a few snippets of tape is easily disproven. Moving on to the content of the quote, I'm expressing my opinion of what a person with moral fiber would have done, and what I expect a President to do when confronted with the situation - there's nothing at all in it about making "white right", unless you consider moral fortitude and quality of character "white" virtues... I certainly do not believe that.
As to the second quote, you could easily attach that description to any number of politicians, including GW Bush, both Senator Clinton and her husband, and maybe even to Obama himself lately as a couple of mini-scandals appear regarding his past political record and present denials of it. Moreover, I wouldn't label Obama a conspiracy theorist, and I don't view the comparison between liars and conspiracy buffs as a racial issue. Since the comment can be applied to any number of black or white politicians of both parties, I have to say your assertion remains unproven.
Lasty, you're cherry-picking quotes - I must have repeated about ten or fifteen times over the last couple of months that I want Obama to win the Democratic primary, specifically because I think it would create a Presidential race centered on issues rather than one mostly about slash-and-burn Clintonian political attacks. I'm hardly a supporter of Hillary over Obama; the further suggestion that not only am I a Hill supporter, but that I support her because she's white, is pure nonsense.
You're welcome to try again though.
So your assertion that I commented after watching a few snippets of tape is easily disproven.
I only have your word for that.
And, if, indeed, you did do the research you claim, and came away with the absurd notion that Rev. Wright is racist, you backup every claim I've leveled against you.
@spool32:
I'm expressing my opinion of what a person with moral fiber would have done...
I'm just not getting this morality angle.
What standards of right and wrong conduct did Obama violate, except your own.
You're a moral force of one.
And that's OK, but don't presume to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong based on your moral creed, and biased view of how a presidents should behave.
As you're well aware, many of our previous presidents are not paragons of virtue, nor a force for moral turpitude in our society, or our view of the presidency.
If we use the past behavior of presidents as some kind of measuring stick for the behavior of future presidents, then, I'm afraid, anything goes.
Clearly, "white is right" since you neglected to place Obama's behavior into a larger context of presidential behavior.
Further, I heard nothing on those tapes that anyone should be apologetic for--not Obama, nor his pastor, Rev. Wright.
Need I remind you that we've never had a black president.
And I further question, and reject your rationalization of Obama's response as unreasonable, immoral, and unbecoming of a president of the United States.
@spool32:
I don't view the comparison between liars and conspiracy buffs as a racial issue.
You made it racial when you sought to defend white actions and behavior, at all costs, when blacks here have discussed what they saw as white unfairness.
You've thrown down the gauntlet and engaged in long, contentious attacks against those who would dare challenge white behavior.
Further, you have carelessly, and forcibly labeled their remarks "racist" as effortlessly as you would say, "Good morning."
@spool32:
I must have repeated about ten or fifteen times over the last couple of months that I want Obama to win the Democratic primary....
Clarity: I never said that you supported H. Clinton as a candidate, but that you show a propensity for assaulting black views and perspectives as they relate to whites, H. Clinton being only one of those whites.
And, I might add, you have Texas two-stepped around stating that you favor Obama over McCain as the nation's next president.
But, I think I know where you stand.
And speaking of "cherry picking," I took note of your unwillingness to comment on several of my assertions, mainly:
I distrust governments, especially those seeking to concentrate power--Homeland Security, and the recent push to expand the role of the Federal Reserve, being two prime examples.
Apparently, that governmental hubris met with your uncontested approval.
And you say the Matrix is just a movie. Now, who's kidding whom?
You're living within a matrix (an illusion) with a matrix (an illusion), but you can't see it because you're blinded by your intellect, and the Cyclopic eye of nationalism (check out that dollar bill, the eye over the pyramid).
As long as you look at this nation with that one eye, your myopic view of things will never reveal the truth of your carefully crafted world.
And you want to know the horror of it--you don't wish to see, you don't wish to awaken to the ugliness of the reality all around you.
You're living an existence with your "Eyes Wide Shut."
Warnings are coming from many corners, but you're not listening, you're not looking.
Sleep is a good thing for the unwary. With your "eyes wide shut," you can dream any lie you choose.
I happily grant you the quote about mistrusting the concentration of power. As for Obama vs. McCain, I'm undecided but I do lean toward McCain. Because he's white? No, because I think Obama's national healthcare is a terrible concept and I think he has better ideas re: Iraq. I'm not sold, though.
As for the rest, you're overreaching badly now. There's someone in this thread who's hopelessly mired in a black vs. white mindset that seems both irrational and unchangeable, but it ain't me.
@spool32:
As for the rest, you're overreaching badly now. There's someone in this thread who's hopelessly mired in a black vs. white mindset that seems both irrational and unchangeable, but it ain't me.
So, I guess it's a wash. It's not you, and it's not me.
Post a Comment