Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bababooyee
He is merely tangential to my point. See above.
I said she is a coward and/or a bigot. Maybe she isn't a coward. Just a bigot. And as I said before, she is interested in topics far more reaching that what is going on in the US.
|
Right, but B, you're essentially defending his position and I'm saying, just look at who you're defending. He's a lackey for the GOP, and seized on things the woman posted BEFORE she started working for Edwards as an opportunity to put the Edwards campaign at a disadvantage (and all his claims that Edwards is a good man doesn't disguise what his real agenda was- to cause trouble for the campaign of a Democrat). Yes, she's responsible for what she's written, but then I guess one has to say, should that affect the job she does for Edwards? If she started posting inflammatory rhetoric under the auspices of his campaign, fine, but these things were posted separately from her job for Edwards.
Clearly conservative Christians had no problem letting go of the fact that Reagan was a divorcé when they voted for him, despite divorce being a sin in their religion. I think the question is, how much should a person's actions or words separate from or prior to a job be allowed to affect whether they keep that job?
And I cannot figure out why a blogger that (rightly, in many cases) points out hypocricies in right-wing church organizations is automatically obligated to do the same with Islam. Why is she required to do that?
Look, ultimately we're all bigots about something ("Bigot" being someone intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from one's own). I have no understanding for the Muslim hajib (headscarf) because I consider it a symbol of a culture that believe men aren't responsible for controlling their sexual desires (I'm just as bigoted about people who say a raped woman was "asking for it" because she was in a short skirt). I think we all have something we're intolerant about. But to say that she's a bigot, and choose to completely ignore and in fact, expressly avoid reading, bigoted comments by the man you are in essence defending, seems a wee bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? What is it you're afraid to learn about Donohue?
As John Cole said, there's room to hate them both. Learning what a complete a*shole he is doesn't mean you'll automatically start reading Pandagon.