--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/4/08 11:44:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > oooooooooh, this is so interesting. Some seem very defensive > > of the assertion that Obama is (correct or not) a Muslim. Would > > that be an embarrassment if he were? A political liability? Now, > > who's the xenophobe? > > The Muslim label is worse than xenophobic if the > labeler is aware (as you are) that Obama isn't a > Muslim, because then it's a purely cynical ploy > to appeal to xenophobes who are too ignorant to > realize it's a lie (in whose eyes being a Muslim > *would* be a political liability). > > The "embarrassment,The "embarrassment,<WBR>" though, b > unscrupulous cynics like yourself. And *especially* > to you, since you obviously set this up so you could > suggest that those who found the labeling (as opposed > to the label itself) offensive were xenophobic. > > > > > Judy , do you feel set up? Must be some paranoia. I have no positive proof > Obama is or is not a Muslim. I have seen pieces on the Internet that say he is > and I have also seen denials. What I find amazing is your's and a couple > other's can get so bent out of shape at my original post and instead of > saying, "Ahem, MDixon your assertion that Obama is a Muslim is an Urban myth and > inaccurate, try reading this website", you accuse me of setting you and others > up to be called xenophobes, which is what I was called, among other things > for suggesting it would be interesting if Americans faced a choice of electing > a black Muslim or white Baptist preacher as president. But then this is > typical of your ilk. There is always a plot behind everything that happens.
"Positive proof?" I certainly see no positive proof you aren't a blatant racist, Dixon. You appear to be still fighting the Civil War... on the losing side.
