The best way to win an argument when you're wrong is to ensure that your opponent can't bring up the fact that you are wrong. Democrats have mastered this tactic. When news broke that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a long time associate of President Obama, claimed that he was offered $150,000.00 by an associate of Mr. Obama to stop preaching until after the November 2008 election, the liberals engaged in their usual smokescreen, only in an even more disturbing manner than usual.
Democrats took to the airwaves claiming that any discussion of an attempt to bribe the Reverend was actually a discussion of President Obama's religious views. They immediately followed by saying that if religious views are on the table, then Mormonism is also up for discussion, and they were free to smear Mitt Romney with arguments regarding his religious beliefs. Never mind that his was all in reaction to a report that an ad might be run (that's two degrees removed from something actually happening).
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure no religion considers bribing a preacher to shut up because he's a racist, anti-semite and generally loathsome piece of crap and might cost you an election a central tenet of the faith. The point of the story is about the bribe, not President Obama's faith (which I believe is about as apparent as his academic record). But, as always, because a liberal cannot win an argument on the merit of the illogic they use to come to conclusions, they resort to changing the argument and threatening their opponents if they bring up the actual argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment