963
Post by: Mannahnin
I knew I liked him. Good speaker, ten years of teaching constitutional law, great ideas about campaign finance reform, opposed the invasion of Iraq.
But I’ve just been doing more reading on his policy ideas and legislative work, and I’m sold.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
And a post from someone on DailyKos about Obama's work in the Illinois State Legislature:
From Congresspedia:
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago [...] Regarded as a staunch liberal, but also "respected ... as a bipartisan dealmaker," during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance. He successfully helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs. Obama also passed bills that put limits on racial profiling and put cameras in police interrogation rooms.
Please note, Obama's success in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of homicide investigations is really amazing because he had to gain not just the support of fellow legislators but also the support of police--not easy to do. And yet this legislation passed unanimously in the state senate.
From the Washington Post:
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped [...] Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure.")
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't know, doesn't seem Orky enough for me. I won't know till it gets to the Choppa competition. 
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
The choppa competition goes to Hilllary, as she is the only battle axe in the race.
bat·tle-axe n.
1. A heavy broad-headed ax formerly used as a weapon.
2. Slang. A woman held to be antagonistic or overbearing.
That's as close as we'll get to a choppa in office.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If he becomes President I weep for this nation. We've had sixteen years of amateurs. SIXTEEN YEARS. No more amateurs.
He's a fluff politician with no experience in, well anything, who thinks he can lead a country in three wars, deal with China and Russia, deal with the fact we may have hit the inflection point on oil development, and deal with the fact our borders are an open sieve.
Yea right.
The choppa competition goes to Hilllary, as she is the only battle axe in the race.
I think of her more like a mob consigliari then a battleaxe, but to each his own personal preference. I'd rather the mob chick, at least she has some cojones.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
@jfrazell - Hillary fan?
Hmm, hope you don't like making money until August. With all the things Clinton wants to do taxes will be raised significantly. I like the proposal of a universal healthcare system, but if people don't want it they shouldn't be fined by the government for it. The taxes that will be embedded into everything we buy on a daily basis will be enough, there's no need to start taking it straight from their paycheck.
As far as Iraq goes I have been very anti-Iraq and the entire war. It's a war for profit at this point and it's getting very ugly. We've stretched our military to the breaking point and we're loosing this thing politically. It doesn't matter how well our troops are doing over there, if the American people don't support it and politics get in the way then we lose. Now, I just spoke with one of my good friends who is a retired Captain in the Army and he explained to me the reason why we went into Iraq. Not the Right wing spin, not the Left wing spin, the actual reason we went in. It now makes strategical sense to me and I can find myself somewhat supporting what could have been. Unfortunately it has been botched horribly. The execution and planning were poor and now we're just stuck. How is she going to "fix" this situation? Simply leave. This was also something I supported until my friend elaborated to me what will happen if this happens. It's a  situation over there and I unfortunately don't think any of the current candidates have a solid solution.
Foreign policy with China and Russia? China is going to become a serious threat very soon. The next generation to run China will be predominately male. History has shown that when a society becomes predominately male they go to war. China will be no exception. They will need natural resources which means they can either go north into Mongolia or Russia or the can go west into Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan. Chinese in the middle east is a scary proposition. Chinese picking a fight with a nuclear country like Russia is an even scarier proposition. How is Hilary going to deal with this? Most likely she won't and it will spiral out of control.
I could go on about Hilary and how she's a terrifying prospect for Presidency, but what would I fall back on? McCain? Eh, I'd prefer if we could get out of this super secret government stuff and having these fat cats at the top being paid off by lobbyists. McCain is a vet though which does earn him some serious points in my book. Obama is most likely where my vote goes. Now I'm not lying to myself believing that if he gets the big seat our streets will be paved with gold and none of us will have to work anymore. I'm not naive enough to believe that our current standings with other foreign powers will instantly improve and they'll be building statues of Mickey Mouse in Tiananmen Square. I don't buy that hope alone will provide a chance for the poor to get medical help and the retired to continue to get the Social Security they so rightly deserve. But damnit, you have to start somewhere and I honestly think Obama can get the ball rolling.
This is in no way a personal attack on you jfrazell and I apologize if it seems that way. I'm just trying to point out why I think Hilary is a bad candidite in my opinion. And I'm sure you have many reasons why you think she is great which I would love to hear.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The only people who have experience in this office are former Presidents and VPs. Since that criminal scumbag Cheney isn’t running, and neither is Gore, a non-amateur isn’t an option.
McCain has more foreign policy experience, and I’m glad his personal experiences and military knowledge allow him to take the principled stand on torture that his rivals wouldn’t. But when your most recent 8 years of experience are supporting bad people engaging in policies that sometimes actuallly do evil in the world, that’s not the experience we need.
Obama is the only candidate who said right up front that going into Iraq was a bad idea.
Obama taught constitutional, election, and civil rights law at arguably the best law school in the country. This is someone who will actually respect the Constutition, and the concept of checks and balances, as opposed to abusing and expanding his powers, and claiming new ones, like Bush and Cheney.
He has 11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.
Successes include...
Support for military personnel and their families (S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585, S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585, S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976)...
Controls and limititions on lobbyists and PACs (S.AMDT.41 to S.1)...
Transparency and accountability in military contracting (S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585)...
Several education amendments (S.AMDT.924 to S.761, S.AMDT.923 to S.761, S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21)...
Carbon capture and sequestration (S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21)...
And pushing for a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan (S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764).
Bills authored by him include:
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
On voting (Passed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008)
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.
On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;
On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)
On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work. Which is, admittedly, what the TV media are encouraging. What next? Is someone going to repeat a Fox News lie about him being a Muslim, attending a Madrassa, or swearing into office on a Koran?
5030
Post by: Grignard
I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.
Doesnt matter to me really. While everyone who cares, or wants to appear to do so, is out voting, I'll be using my alloted time off from work to be doing something that will actually give me some satisfaction, namely, having an ice cold beer or two on someone else's dime.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Thank you Mannahnin for the link and the examples of Obama's accomplishments. Unfortunately I don't think Obama should get to sit back and say "I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning and I still am today". He wasn't in the Senate when the war in Iraq started, so he didn't get to vote. So therefore he has nothing to lose and much to gain by saying he was against the war. Providing benefits for our boys and girls in the military and their family as well as providing education for our children are strong points.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:The only people who have experience in this office are former Presidents and VPs. Since that criminal scumbag Cheney isn’t running, and neither is Gore, a non-amateur isn’t an option.
I disagree. There are differing levels of experience. Obama has, well none of them.
-No military experience
-No business experience
-No governmental experience. He has no experience managing governmental personnel, agencies, or well anything.
-no federal legislative experience (please house senator or whatever is blindingly irrelevant and only illuminates his lack of gravitas). He’s never chaired anything and actually been there. He’s has a joyous position of not even voting on issues.
Obama taught constitutional, election, and civil rights law at arguably the best law school in the country. This is someone who will actually respect the Constutition, and the concept of checks and balances, as opposed to abusing and expanding his powers, and claiming new ones, like Bush and Cheney.
-Wow, now I’m even more against him. We’re voting on someone to run the country, not play legal touchy feely.
-If I want a lawyer I’d vote for a real lawyer, not a professor.
-I want a Truman, a Teddy Roosevelt. You’re giving me the Paper Chase. No thanks.
11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.
Most of which is in the Illinois statehouse. Big deal. There’s literally thousands of the garden variety politicians running around. Other than taking money from criminals that’s not really impressive.
Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work.
Nope he’s a short term US Senator with no international experience, no business experience, no experience running a governmental entity, and has never “stepped across the aisle” on important legislation to get something done. He’s rated as one of, or the most liberal voting senator in the US senate. He’s a blank slate because he’s done nothing, the real world equivalent to Zaphod Beeblebrox, so everyone acts like he’s the Second coming or something.
Edit:
I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.
Indeed we need someone to make up the Book of Politicians in Stupid Outfits. Can you envision Franklin Roosevelt in a sombrero. I 
We could show stupid hats through time and by party starting with the Whigs. Who knows maybe we can dig up Andy Jackson in a nutty hat (looks at painting from battle of New Orleans) oh wait, never mind 
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.
The point I was getting at is that there is what I perceive to be a false portrayal of Obama in the media as being “style over substance” or a “lightweight”. Whether it’s out of actual ignorance, trying to write a dramatic narrative, or a deliberate effort to misrepresent him. The Muslim stuff I ctied three other false claims made about him, and repeated by credulous media sources (Fox News, prominently, though not alone).
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Unfortunately there is no restriction on what the media can say. Which is a good and bad thing. I also believe firmly that the media dictates who wins the nomination. Someone like Ron Paul or Bill Richardson doesn't have a shot in hell because the media simply won't let them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I believe there's scuttlebutt that Paul is about to drop out. his campaign was like the only one that didn't call my house Tuesday.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:I disagree. There are differing levels of experience. Obama has, well none of them.
-No military experience
-No business experience
-No governmental experience. He has no experience managing governmental personnel, agencies, or well anything.
-no federal legislative experience (please house senator or whatever is blindingly irrelevant and only illuminates his lack of gravitas). He’s never chaired anything and actually been there. He’s has a joyous position of not even voting on issues.
biography.com wrote:
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Foreign Relations Committee
- Veterans Affairs Committee
- 2005 and 2006: served on the Environment and Public Works Committee
“No Federal Legislative experience”? You’re joking, right? Do you think I just made those bills up?
jfrazell wrote:
-Wow, now I’m even more against him. We’re voting on someone to run the country, not play legal touchy feely.
-If I want a lawyer I’d vote for a real lawyer, not a professor.
-I want a Truman, a Teddy Roosevelt. You’re giving me the Paper Chase. No thanks.
He was a real lawyer. He entered Harvard Law in ’88, in ’90 was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in ’91. He went back to Chicago after graduation and worked as a Civil Rights lawyer, then was elected to the state senate in ’96.
biography.com wrote: During these years, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting legislation on ethics, expanded health care services and early childhood education programs for the poor. He also created a state earned-income tax credit for the working poor. And after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
He taught on the side from 1993 to 2004, and was so good that he was offered a full-time faculty position at U of Chicago Law School, which again, is one of the best in the country. He declined, because he preferred politics.
In 2004 he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
biography.com wrote: Sworn into office January 4, 2005, Obama partnered with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Eastern Europe and Russia. Then with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, he created a website that tracks all federal spending.
Obama was also the first to raise the threat of avian flu on the Senate floor, spoke out for victims of Hurricane Katrina, pushed for alternative-energy development and championed improved veterans’ benefits. He also worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress.
Roosevelt went into the NY legislature right out of Harvard for 2 years, then ran a ranch for 2 years, served as US Civil Service Commissioner for 6, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for only 1 year before resigning to join the military when we went to war with Spain. This was a very popular war, and his heroic status got him the Governorship of NY (2 years), the VP spot (for 1 year), and he fell into the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated.
Truman was an elected Senator for 10 years before becoming VP then President. Before that he just held county seats. Before that he worked for the Democratic party, ran an unsuccessful clothing store, and was a Lt in WWI.
Both were VPs first, neither had much executive experience before becoming President. Roosevelt had a massive 2 years of legislative experience, compared to Truman’s 10 and Obama’s 11. Granted that the Illinois state senate isn’t as impressive as the US Senate, but it’s nothing to sneeze at.
jfrazell wrote: 11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.
Most of which is in the Illinois statehouse. Big deal. There’s literally thousands of the garden variety politicians running around. Other than taking money from criminals that’s not really impressive.
No, I’m talking about his time in the US Senate here. His work in Illinois wasn’t trivial either (see examples above).
jfrazell wrote: Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work.
Nope he’s a short term US Senator with no international experience, no business experience, no experience running a governmental entity, and has never “stepped across the aisle” on important legislation to get something done.
Bullpucky. Working with Dick Lugar on WMDs in Eastern Europe and Russia isn’t important? Working with Senator Coburn on creating a website to track all Federal spending isn’t important?
jfrazell wrote: He’s rated as one of, or the most liberal voting senator in the US senate.
Good. “All progress in human history is due to liberalism”- George McGovern.
jfrazell wrote: He’s a blank slate because he’s done nothing, the real world equivalent to Zaphod Beeblebrox, so everyone acts like he’s the Second coming or something.
Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You are reiterating a common attack of his opponents’, based largely on plain ignorance of his education, work history, qualifications, and legislative work.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
IMO, things don't look overly promising for Obama right now.
According to recent news, NEITHER Democratic candidate can get enough delegates to win candidacy. That means they have to go back to Michigan & Florida.
They're talking about voting all over again in those states, if they can ever decide who's going to pay for it.
Hillary stuck with those states more than any other candidate. She's got an "up" on Obama in those states, now.
People tend to remember who slighted them & who stuck with them. Plus, Obama had his name removed from those ballots for a reason. I believe that he didn't think he could beat Hillary in either of them. If people had a CHOICE of who to vote for, and he came out on bottom, it would have meant a lot of lost momentum, and not a few people using it as a point against him.
If those states vote again, I'd be worried for Obama, if I was a fan of his... or if i were him.
That being said, I DO like him... I just prefer Hillary.
My ideal ticket would be Hillary/Obama.
Eric
221
Post by: Frazzled
double post
221
Post by: Frazzled
jfrazell wrote:Wait you're trying to convince me someone who was "sworn into office" in 2005 has experience? Thats all of TWO YEARS. BIG Deal
Again, I restate. No More Amateurs. Haven't we learned enough from Clinton / Bush?
Its interesting that Truman (one of my personal favorites, is cited). Note truman served 5x as long before being VP to a sitting president.
Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You are reiterating a common attack of his opponents’, based largely on plain ignorance of his education, work history, qualifications, and legislative work.
Sorry Manny, but frankly you're just insulting those who disagree with you. I am keenly aware of his (lack of) work history and accomplishments.
Lets compare
1970s onward
-Nixon. Governor, legislator. Only Nixon could go to China (had to throw that in there)
-Ford. Er…watch that step Mr. President!
-Carter. Governor
-Reagan. Governor
-Bush. Former VP. CIA and other agency wonk.
-Clinton. Governor
-Bush. Governor (in Texas defense he was coherent back then)
-Obama. Junior senator-hasn’t served one term.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
So if you're not for Obama and not for Clinton then are you for McCain?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I am for the best candidate on the ballot. I'm pro McCain at this point. Anyone who has the brass/is nutty enough to say "we're like Luke Skywalker fighting it out in the Deathstar" while on the stump makes me give them a second look.
I keep thinking what if McCain had won the Republican ticket in 2000. I also keep wondering where all the titans of yore have gone to guide us in this dark hour. There is no Roosevelt, no Truman, no Eisenhower, no Tricky Dick, just the B team. is this the best there is? Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton must be holding them all hostage in a bunker somewhere? Send out the bloodhounds!
1423
Post by: dienekes96
I don't care about his opinion on invading Iraq in 2003. That's worthless to me now. My opinion depends on where does he stand on US interests and our responsibilities in 2009, and what does he intend to do about it. I have issues with anyone who's solution is to simply pull out US troops because they don't like the decision in 2003 (not saying Obama said this). That's reactive, not proactive. That's looking back, not forward.
The reason I prefer Obama to Hillary is his leadership abilities. The president is an executive, not a legislator. He provides vision, not bills.
I trust McCain far more on Iraq because he has a real vested interest in it, he has one son in the Marines and another graduating from the Naval Academy in 2009. He's the ONLY candidate with blood on the line over there. So any proselytizing that he secretly supports the war for any reason other than he believes in the outcome loses Occam's Razor. He's risking far more for his beliefs than Obama or Clinton. That doesn't make him right. It does dignify his stance, though.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dienekes96 wrote:I don't care about his opinion on invading Iraq in 2003. That's worthless to me now. My opinion depends on where does he stand on US interests and our responsibilities in 2009, and what does he intend to do about it. I have issues with anyone who's solution is to simply pull out US troops because they don't like the decision in 2003 (not saying Obama said this). That's reactive, not proactive. That's looking back, not forward.
The reason I prefer Obama to Hillary is his leadership abilities. The president is an executive, not a legislator. He provides vision, not bills.
I trust McCain far more on Iraq because he has a real vested interest in it, he has one son in the Marines and another graduating from the Naval Academy in 2009. He's the ONLY candidate with blood on the line over there. So any proselytizing that he secretly supports the war for any reason other than he believes in the outcome loses Occam's Razor. He's risking far more for his beliefs than Obama or Clinton. That doesn't make him right. It does dignify his stance, though.
That is one big reason I think McCain is the smartest choice for the Republicans right now. My luck we'll end up having to choose between Huckabee and Hillary, and if that happens, all kidding aside, I opt out.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
I keep thinking "What if McCain would have slapped Bush back into his seat after talking some serious back then". Like I said, McCain gets some points in my book for being a vet and for saying some strong words back in the day, but the Bush regime has clipped his testicles.
My favorite from McCain though was when a reporter in Arizona asked him "McCain, you claim to be an Arizona native, yet you weren't born here". and McCain replied... "Look, the longest time I ever spent in one place was the 7 years I spent in a Vietnam PoW camp. If I feel like saying I'm from Arizona then that's where I'm from". If only he could do some of that today.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Agreed Stormtrooper X.
I respect the opinions of those pro-Hillary and Obama, I just believe that Obama is qualified to be President only because he is a blank slate who hasn't done anything. His policy intiiaive statenments have been to attack into Pakistan (I'm ok with that you just do it quietly) and return to Iraq IF Al Qaeda is there...er missed some current events there Obamamamma. But none of them are perfect and the first one to say I will close the US borders in 100 days or I will resign gets my vote and my money.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Judgement is a critical issue. We are presently locked into an immoral war of choice in Iraq. While we ARE stuck there, and DO have obligations there other than just “pull out now”, the opinions people had of the war before it happened and going in more certainly ARE relevant. This war is an evil. McCain supported it, most likely in genuine (though mistaken) belief that the results would be better than they have been. If he misjudged the reasons for going to war, and guessed wrong about the outcome, he’s already flubbed the most obvious test of his primary qualification- military and foreign policy experience.
Grignard- Huckabee pulled out of the race Tuesday night.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1566
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:Judgement is a critical issue. We are presently locked into an immoral war of choice in Iraq. While we ARE stuck there, and DO have obligations there other than just “pull out now”, the opinions people had of the war before it happened and going in more certainly ARE relevant. This war is an evil. McCain supported it, most likely in genuine (though mistaken) belief that the results would be better than they have been. If he misjudged the reasons for going to war, and guessed wrong about the outcome, he’s already flubbed the most obvious demonstration of his primary qualification- military and foreign policy experience.
But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its easy for him to say he was against something. He had no dog in that hunt and was coming from a relatively liberal state. Whats he going to do NOW?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?
Absolutely. And if he were still the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” from 2000, the guy who many of my fellow liberal and centrist friends liked and supported, the guy who got smeared and wrecked by the Rove/Bush campaign machine, he might have stood up and spoken out against it. Instead he acted like a soldier instead of a statesman, backing the immoral decisions of the very people who sabotaged and smeared him in 2000.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:Its easy for him to say he was against something. He had no dog in that hunt and was coming from a relatively liberal state. Whats he going to do NOW?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
5030
Post by: Grignard
I also think immoral and evil are judgemental terms...I really am not convinced any decision was made out of conscious evil. For that matter, what is meant by evil?
221
Post by: Frazzled
The fact I am sitting here on a Friday with no chocolate cake is proof of conscious evil on somebody's part.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Well, what do you guys suggest be done about Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East? Pull out? Stay in?
The issue here is that Iraqis do not view themselves as Iraqis. They for the most part could give a about united country. They are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds; not Iraqis. If we pull out Iraq disintegrates into absolute chaos. Don't care? You should. Turkey and Iran would certainly move in to get as much oil rich real-estate they can get their hands on. All Israel is doing is waiting. Waiting for Iran to up and then Boom! They'll bomb the out of the Iranians and Palestinians. That's all it will take for a horrible domino effect in the Middle East. And lets not forget there are an unfortunate amount of nuclear powers over there and some of them hate each other.
So should we stay? Tough call too. We've stretched our military to the breaking point. People who have retired or have been discharged from the Army, but are still on the call list are being called back in left and right. If you go into the Army now you WILL go to Iraq and be there for an unfortunate amount of time. We're losing allies and foreign support (honestly, how can you piss off the Canadians??). It's only a matter of time before the British give up on us. There are an ever increasing number of mercenaries running around there that are not held to any nations laws because their contracts with the U.S. government specifically say it. The Iraqi people are growing in resentment for us because companies like Blackwater do whatever they want to whoever they want and nothing can be done about it. Saudi Arabia is pumping in all kinds of radicals that our troops have to deal with. So what do you do to stay?
Just curious what you guys think on it as it is quite literally one of the most important topics of our time.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:I also think immoral and evil are judgemental terms...I really am not convinced any decision was made out of conscious evil. For that matter, what is meant by evil?
Yes, they most certainly are.
No one* consciously thinks of themselves as evil. But they may consciously choose to do things which they deny to themselves are evil, but which other people can judge. If they fail to assess the (im)morality of their own actions and decisions, it is all the more important that we do so.
http://onelook.com/?w=evil&ls=a
onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (evil)
• noun: morally objectionable behavior
• noun: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")
• noun: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")
• adjective: tending to cause great harm
Torture is evil.
Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
War is one of the greatest evils known to man. Anyone who’s participated in it knows that. Senator McCain can testify to it, as could both of my grandfathers if they were still alive. War is justified in defense. The doctrine of preemptive war is evil, and thankfully none of our leaders during the Cold War were stupid or suicidal enough to engage in it (though there were people who pushed for it back then).
George McGovern, Harper's Magazine Dec 2002 wrote:One reason I am cautious about sending young men off to war is that I have seen what war does. Half of the bomber crews that I flew with in WWII never made it home again. The images remain with me after fifty-five yearsyoung airmen laughing and talking over breakfast before daylight, and then a few minutes later being blown to bits when their huge, overloaded bomber filled with men, bombs, and high-octane gasoline crashed during takeoff. I see the image of a bomber taking a direct hit over the target, catching fire, exploding, and falling in pieces over hostile enemy territory. I tell you these things because no man who has had these experiences will ever again speak carelessly about war. It is the worst thing that men do to each other. When I listen to the bombastic rhetoric of Messrs. Bush and Cheney and the war cries of Ms. Rice, I know that I'm hearing from people who've never been near a battlefield. The British conservative Edmund Burke put it best: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/mcgovern.htm
*Certain types of psychopaths aside
221
Post by: Frazzled
From the site front page
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.
That’s 6-7 months before full pullout. What happens if violence erupts? Al Qaeda is still there. Per Obama we will be required to immediately re-invade.
He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.
*****************************************************************
Ooh this sounds both Orwellian creepy and Naively Wilsonesque.
He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of
the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.
*****************************************************************
-Political oatmeal. Very touchy feely but nothing to pin him on for not getting results.
-what is a “new regional security compact,” anyway?
And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes.
***************************************************************
-Again what is the supposed to mean? Is he going after the US military, Iran for supporting the war, the Sunni and Shiite extremists, or Al Qaeda?
5030
Post by: Grignard
I just don't understand why we didnt start out from the begining by saying we needed to install a government amicable to us in Iraq, for reasons that include securing steady oil imports into the United States. I would have understood that point of view perfectly.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Mannahnin wrote:But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?
Absolutely. And if he were still the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” from 2000, the guy who many of my fellow liberal and centrist friends liked and supported, the guy who got smeared and wrecked by the Rove/Bush campaign machine, he might have stood up and spoken out against it. Instead he acted like a soldier instead of a statesman, backing the immoral decisions of the very people who sabotaged and smeared him in 2000.
I don't like the fact that he had to make peace with those ass-clowns either, but if he wanted the GOP's nomination he had too. If he had changed parties or run as an independent, he would not have any shot at all. And he is far and away a better choice than Huchabee.
Statesman is a title they earn after all of the immoral crap they did to get there.
I dislike the Iraq war, because it pulled valuable resources out of Afghanistan. Which I view as a just war. It sickens me that we may lose that because of Bush's obsession. While McCain has made some mistakes, I still think he is a good man. At least as good as a politician can be. I trust him not to throw the soldier's lives away like Bush has. If the Iraq war can be fixed, I think he can do it.
I also like Hillary & Obama. Like her or not, Hillary is fully capable of being a good President. Same with Obama, he may not have enough experience for some. But for me he brings a fresh start. And after these last 8 years, that's enough. I think we can risk 4 years and see what happens.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Torture is evil.
Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.
Why?
Torturing terrorists to get information that will save the lives of others is not evil.
Don't foist your worldview on me.
To the topic I don't think we can waste 8 more years. Look at what Bush did post Tora Bora? This isn't 1992 when we can bang around, there's serious going down daily and we need people who can deal with that stuff.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
5030
Post by: Grignard
I just simply don't care either way about the torture. As it happens, I dont think the ends quite justify the means in this case, but I'm no expert in that matter. What matters to me is how this next presidency is going to affect yours truly.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Grignard wrote:I just don't understand why we didnt start out from the begining by saying we needed to install a government amicable to us in Iraq, for reasons that include securing steady oil imports into the United States. I would have understood that point of view perfectly.
That wouldn't have worked in 2002. If we would have went before the world and said "Hey, uhh, we want to like jump into Iraq and you know... give em democracy and stuff. Don't ask why we didn't do this 11 years ago, but it totally has to be done now." Sorry, not gonna fly.
"Hey, these muthas are packin some serious ! We need to get in there and take these muthas out. This dude Saddam is one evil chump and he's been fundin terrorists and what not. Let's do this" While it's all lies it carried a lot more weight and got a lot of countries to join us.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You also had the concept of a reverse domino effect going down here, with a view that they would go democratic and the other dictatorships would start to go that way as well. Worked for a bit then they messed it up.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
War is justified in defense.
But defense of what, Mann? There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go. The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful. After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll. The best defense is a good offense, as the football saying goes. I don't buy into that in the real world, but it's an understandable motivator.
So I don't believe you can frame a 2003 decision with moral context from 2008. Well, you can, but your character judgements will be flawed, since you have access to 5 years of history the government did not, McCain included.
And of course war is evil, we've discussed that. That's a simplistic view. That's why I trust McCain on it more than Obama or Clinton.
And Obama is dead wrong, militarily, by recommending a piecemeal reduction in US forces. As the numbers shrink, the remainder are MORE vulnerable. I honestly believe a policy of partial, time-driven (not event driven) withdrawal is dangerous to US forces. I feel bad for the last unit left in Iraq.
I absolutely support Obama's push for diplomacy and a new regional compact, however. Without substantive support from other nations we've maligned over the past few years, Iraq is not going to drag itself out, and we certainly aren't up to the challenge.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Problem is is there are too many countries over there that don't want democracy... lets not lie to ourselves, it's not democracy, it's a republic... Democracy is probably the worst form of government out there. You think the royalty of a country like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is going to let themselves be voted out of power? Not a chance in hell.
Scratch that, the leaders over there don't want a Republic and they'll slaughter whoever wants to enforce one (their own people) or use guerilla tactics against a foreign power who wants to impose one (Us). The only way those governments will change is if the people rise up and take it back.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.
This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.
We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.
"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I would take that as a truth now stormtrooper.
And as you noted Iraq is just an absolute Gordion knot. We're going to need someone up to that challenge to improve the situation. Its a all order and I certainly couldn't do it, not with current attitudes and budgets.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dienekes96 wrote:War is justified in defense.
But defense of what, Mann? There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go. The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful. After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll. The best defense is a good offense, as the football saying goes. I don't buy into that in the real world, but it's an understandable motivator.
That is why I don't buy the interpretation of our actions as evil. The fact is that the regime at in power in Iraq at the time was perfectly content to use chemical agents on their neighbors in Iran, and the Iraqi people. It turns out he no longer had the capability or desire to do so, but it does mean that at one time he had that ability.
Torture is wrong. Ok, we'll go with that. One thing we did manage to achieve was to remove a governemnt that used torture to compell allegience to the government.
What I think was one of our biggest mistakes, and tell me what you think of my opinion on this, is to allow Saddam to fall into the hands of the people who executed them, and an even worse error to allow it to be filmed. To me, the people who put Saddam to death look like the same guys abducting and killing US citizens, that is, a bunch of guys with black hoods over their head executing somebody. Now, Saddam, a man who was never very religious to start with, has become a martyr, because of a video recorded on a cheap cellular telephone.
5030
Post by: Grignard
jfrazell wrote:I would take that as a truth now stormtrooper.
And as you noted Iraq is just an absolute Gordion knot. We're going to need someone up to that challenge to improve the situation. Its a all order and I certainly couldn't do it, not with current attitudes and budgets.
Where is the next Alexander.....
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:That’s 6-7 months before full pullout. What happens if violence erupts? Al Qaeda is still there. Per Obama we will be required to immediately re-invade.
No, we would maintain a small residual presence in the area and have a standing agreement with the Iraq government to still fight Al Qaeda (you remember them, our actual enemies) if they did anything in Iraq. I expect said force would also be the first responders in the event of genocidal actions which required the intervention of outside nations (including but not limited to us).
jfrazell wrote:-He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.
*****************************************************************
-Political oatmeal. Very touchy feely but nothing to pin him on for not getting results.
This is the short form. If Bush was capable of getting even this detailed, it’d be a miracle.
Aren’t you the guy supporting a party which has provided substantially BAD results?
jfrazell wrote:--what is a “new regional security compact,” anyway?
Quick definitions on onelook.com include: “A signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action.” So we sit down with Iraq and the other countries in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan) and agree in writing on terms and responsibilities for establishing and maintaining peace and stability.
jfrazell wrote:-And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes.
***************************************************************
-Again what is the supposed to mean? Is he going after the US military, Iran for supporting the war, the Sunni and Shiite extremists, or Al Qaeda?
Confronting the humanitarian disaster means cleanup, food, housing, medical care for the four million Iraqi refugees, and other people who need it. Something like the Marshall Plan, probably, only this time we’re more responsible for the damage we’re fixing.
“Perpetrators of potential war crimes” would most likely be sectarian extremists.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:
Torture is evil.
Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.
Why?
Torturing terrorists to get information that will save the lives of others is not evil.
Don't foist your worldview on me.
We had this debate already. Your position lost.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/207403.page
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nope. Just got tired of the argument.
Again, don't foist your views on me, especially in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
That's moral cowardice.
Define "foist your views". I am expressing my opinions and beliefs.
You barely participated in the torture argument. Chuck gave me the motivation to demolish the false premises under which you are supporting the brutal mistreatment of human beings.
6394
Post by: orknidious
Obama all the way. reason and judgment over years of corruption.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:That's moral cowardice.
No it means I just had to get back to work 
You're making declarative statements that tortute is evil. That comes from a particular worldview. I am not saying that worldview is incorrect. I agree with it 99.9% of the time and its the Christian thing. But its not everyone's worldview. I just object to the absolutism of the statement. nothing in the world is black and white, even zebras.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Sorry, I meant that in response to your comment:
...in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.
Sometimes, with some issues, there really is a right and wrong. Torture is one of them, as I think I amply demonstrated and documented in the previous thread.
I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:Sorry, I meant that in response to your comment:
...in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.
Sometimes, with some issues, there really is a right and wrong. Torture is one of them, as I think I amply demonstrated and documented in the previous thread.
I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.
I think the problem here is that there are some people who have a fundamentally different world view than you. While I'm no fan of torture, some of the positions you hold, I cannot even imagine holding. I'm not trying to insult you, or even your views. I literally cannot put myself in your shoes and look outward. Perhaps it is a failure of empathy, but I just can't do it. Ive never been exactly a tolerant person, and it has been something I've worked on, but it just isn't happening here.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I hear you.
I am occasionally a somewhat judgmental person, and I am using fairly stark language in this discussion.
I often get tired of seeing people on the other side of the ideological divide be the only ones expressing their position in strong terms. Sometimes putting your views forth in a nuanced, nice manner feels and looks like weakness. Especially when the folks I’m opposing are espousing views and positions I find morally repugnant, intellectually bankrupt, and/or grotesquely incompatible with their professed religious beliefs.
Can you tell me which of my views are so incomprehensible?
I am curious as to how your worldview is so fundamentally different than mine.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Again thats your view. I do not submit to that view.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Feel free to respond to my (and Malcolm Nance's, and Col Herrington’s, and Gen. Krulak and Hoar’s, etc.) views in the other thread if you want to reopen that discussion. The evidence and the expert opinion are against torture. When I asked for someone to provide a real-world example of a time when torture actually helped save lives, no one responded.
As for Iraq, going in has clearly harmed everyone involved. Us, them, everyone. Feel free to argue to the contrary, but just saying “I disagree” looks like putting your head in the sand.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
dienekes96 wrote:War is justified in defense.
But defense of what, Mann?
In defense against an attack. Iraq didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did. They were supported and sheltered by the then-government of Afghanistan, so going in there made perfect sense.
dienekes96 wrote:There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go.
What the two major political parties "thought" isn't the key. What the evidence showed and what the intelligence specialists knew or suspected is what matters. And those are the folks who should have been listened to and properly used.
Clarke made clear in Against All Enemies that we KNEW Iraq stopped engaging in any terrorist plots against us after we bombed his intelligence HQ in 1993 in response to the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life.
Hussein did encourage terrorist acts against Israel by financially rewarding the families of suicide bombers, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Yes, it’s evil, and yes it’s a connection to terrorism. What it is NOT is any threat to us, or any connection/affiliation with Al Qaeda, despite a concerted, deliberate, and successful effort by the Bush administration to deceitfully link them in the minds of Congress and the American people.
dienekes96 wrote:The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful.
You’re right that it was based on that perception. A mistaken belief deliberately fostered by the administration’s deceptive sales campaign for war.
In fact the intelligence we had at the time did not support going in, as Clarke and others said at the time.
Several representatives did doubt the claims about WMDs and an immediate threat to us, oppose the resolution, and recommend a closer look at the evidence being put forth.
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=28
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul%27s_Iraq_Speech
dienekes96 wrote:After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll.
That was, indeed, part of the sales pitch. But our actions in Iraq have misdirected our focus away from our security (port security, securing former Russian nuclear weapons, hunting Al Qaeda personnel), and actually reduced our capacity (in terms of manpower and money) to respond to real threats to us.
dienekes96 wrote:So I don't believe you can frame a 2003 decision with moral context from 2008. Well, you can, but your character judgements will be flawed, since you have access to 5 years of history the government did not, McCain included.
But they did have access to more intelligence data. They did not have to buy the Bush cherry-picked version. Sen. Levin, among others, concluded on investigation that when you actually looked at the whole picture, the rationale just wasn’t there.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7320249
dienekes96 wrote:And Obama is dead wrong, militarily, by recommending a piecemeal reduction in US forces. As the numbers shrink, the remainder are MORE vulnerable. I honestly believe a policy of partial, time-driven (not event driven) withdrawal is dangerous to US forces. I feel bad for the last unit left in Iraq.
One of the specific jobs he puts in his withdrawal strategy for them is protecting themselves. I disagree with your assessment that they are more vulnerable than they are now. Guerillas don’t much care how many of you there are. The army isn’t all in the same market at the same time.
What’s your plan? Obama’s got one, at least.
Event-driven might work. What are your events? Having a certain number of trained Iraqi troops in place? What if they don’t meet the goals? How long are we willing to stay? Iraq has continually missed and failed to meet timeframes and deadlines we’ve given them. Obama thinks a gradual withdrawal will force them to take the action that’s needed. If they want to be secure, they need to defend themselves. We can’t keep doing it for them. It didn’t work in Vietnam either. And yes, Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. But you know what? We’re on pretty good terms with Vietnam nowadays. Nixon and Johnson spent a lot of American lives before they finally got us the heck out of there.
dienekes96 wrote:I absolutely support Obama's push for diplomacy and a new regional compact, however. Without substantive support from other nations we've maligned over the past few years, Iraq is not going to drag itself out, and we certainly aren't up to the challenge.
Good man. Electing Obama would clearly communicate to the rest of the world that we are serious about changing our course. It would reinvigorate our diplomatic abilities and put us on much better footing to deal with countries that are currently extremely suspicious of us, and appalled by Bush. Which is most of them. Electing McCain would be saying that we still think we were right all along.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Mannahnin wrote:I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.
Just as WWII is a real-world example of the folly and immorality of a defensive-only war...with a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH (do I need to go on?) larger butcher's bill. It's not cut and dried at all.
Mannahnin wrote:Chuck gave me the motivation to demolish the false premises under which you are supporting the brutal mistreatment of human beings.
To be fair, I don't think you demolished *my* argument
Mannahnin wrote:Feel free to respond to my (and Malcolm Nance's, and Col Herrington’s, and Gen. Krulak and Hoar’s, etc.) views in the other thread if you want to reopen that discussion. The evidence and the expert opinion are against torture. When I asked for someone to provide a real-world example of a time when torture actually helped save lives, no one responded.
1) Some evidence, SOME experts.
2) As for real world examples, we (and whoever) else, probably doesn't publish such information. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I bet it does.
Mannahnin wrote:As for Iraq, going in has clearly harmed everyone involved. Us, them, everyone. Feel free to argue to the contrary, but just saying “I disagree” looks like putting your head in the sand.
Ask me again in ten years. If we'd handled the war and the peace better, it might have been seen as a prescient move now. It still has not been placed into historical context in the least. I believe you have a rush to judgement. I can say there is one less dictator in the Middle-East. At great cost, but that's something. Watching 70%+ show up to vote in Iraq was pretty special. Omelettes and eggs, and all that.
Mannahnin wrote:What the two major political parties "thought" isn't the key. What the evidence showed and what the intelligence specialists knew or suspected is what matters. And those are the folks who should have been listened to and properly used.
Clarke made clear in Against All Enemies that we KNEW Iraq stopped engaging in any terrorist plots against us after we bombed his intelligence HQ in 1993 in response to the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life.
Clarke made it clear AFTER the fact, after public opinion turned. he said no such thing in 1994 - 2004. Sorry if I question his motives, especially when he is SELLING HIS OWN book.
Mannahnin wrote:Hussein did encourage terrorist acts against Israel by financially rewarding the families of suicide bombers, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Yes, it’s evil, and yes it’s a connection to terrorism.
It is another kettle of fish, but I do believe our war against terror (which is a terrible term) wasn't just a "war against terror against the US".
Mannahnin wrote:What it is NOT is any threat to us, or any connection/affiliation with Al Qaeda, despite a concerted, deliberate, and successful effort by the Bush administration to deceitfully link them in the minds of Congress and the American people.
Is there proof it was deliberate. There are volumes on it, but I've yet to see a smoking gun. Where you see malice, I see incompetence. Bush can't be an idiot and an evil genius. The liberals have YET to figure that out. He's neither.
Mannahnin wrote:You’re right that it was based on that perception. A mistaken belief deliberately fostered by the administration’s deceptive sales campaign for war.
In fact the intelligence we had at the time did not support going in, as Clarke and others said at the time.
Not publically they didn't. And that is how our government works. Listening to our chicken**** politicians pretend the wool was pulled over their eyes when they failed to do THEIR job in 2003 is near criminal to me.
Mannahnin wrote:Several representatives did doubt the claims about WMDs and an immediate threat to us, oppose the resolution, and recommend a closer look at the evidence being put forth.
But not enough...and we had a vote. That's our government.
Mannahnin wrote:That was, indeed, part of the sales pitch. But our actions in Iraq have misdirected our focus away from our security (port security, securing former Russian nuclear weapons, hunting Al Qaeda personnel), and actually reduced our capacity (in terms of manpower and money) to respond to real threats to us.
This I agree with 100%.
Mannahnin wrote:But they did have access to more intelligence data. They did not have to buy the Bush cherry-picked version. Sen. Levin, among others, concluded on investigation that when you actually looked at the whole picture, the rationale just wasn’t there.
All done after the fact. Again, you see malice where I see incompetence. And incompetence has been proven far more often than malice when it comes to this administration.
Mannahnin wrote:One of the specific jobs he puts in his withdrawal strategy for them is protecting themselves. I disagree with your assessment that they are more vulnerable than they are now. Guerillas don’t much care how many of you there are. The army isn’t all in the same market at the same time.
Guerillas absolutely care. I know the libs hate to talk about this, but the surge accomplished what it was supposed to. In a war, numbers matter. Smaller targets are easier targets, and present greater vulnerability. That's very basic military craft.
Mannahnin wrote:What’s your plan? Obama’s got one, at least.
I haven't seen his. I've seen some basic overlays, with some input from his ONE military advisor. There is no "there" there. Except to be time-driven.
My plan would be to have the government do their job and establish criteria for military/state success in Iraq. The military then allocates the necessary manpower to meet those goals. As they are met, units go home. Driven by military/state goals...not public opinion polls.
Mannahnin wrote:Event-driven might work. What are your events? Having a certain number of trained Iraqi troops in place? What if they don’t meet the goals? How long are we willing to stay? Iraq has continually missed and failed to meet timeframes and deadlines we’ve given them. Obama thinks a gradual withdrawal will force them to take the action that’s needed. If they want to be secure, they need to defend themselves. We can’t keep doing it for them. It didn’t work in Vietnam either. And yes, Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. But you know what? We’re on pretty good terms with Vietnam nowadays. Nixon and Johnson spent a lot of American lives before they finally got us the heck out of there.
The South Vietnamese spent a hell of a lot MORE lives to the North after we left. That's usually forgotten.
And no, we can't do it for them. There must be accountability in their government. If they can't do it, TFB. Once OUR goals (train xxx number of Iraqi troops, effectively, in the following tactics) are met, we're done. Then it's their problem. Until then, security is OUR responsibility. It's nice Obama thinks that and he might be right. It's not HIS kid on the line if he's wrong.
Mannahnin wrote:Good man. Electing Obama would clearly communicate to the rest of the world that we are serious about changing our course. It would reinvigorate our diplomatic abilities and put us on much better footing to deal with countries that are currently extremely suspicious of us, and appalled by Bush. Which is most of them. Electing McCain would be saying that we still think we were right all along.
I don't elect a president to make the world happy. I have foreign friends who like McCain just fine. They can be appalled by Bush all they want. I'm appalled at their inaction to major world events, except to point the finger at the US (sometimes deserved, sometimes not). I want to choose a president that is best for the United States of America. If that's good for the world, so be it. If not, I won't lose a wink of sleep.
I do not necessarily believe Obama's path will work. The Middle East scoffed at Clinton in 1992, 2000, and still do. For all his soft influence efforts, Bush accomplished just as much if not more between Palestine and Israel.
It's this simple. I want Obama to be the Democratic candidate. I am very pleased that McCain is the Republican candidate. I don't know who I am going to vote for. McCain had the brass balls to take the hits by supporting the surge, when it was the LEAST popular thing he could do. That shows moral conviction...more than Obama or Clinton have ever shown. McCain has family in Iraq, with more going. McCain understands the physical cost of war far better than Clinton or Obama. McCain has more experience in foreign policy than both of them together. McCain has PROVEN record in federal level bipartisanship. But even I don't believe he deserves the job yet. And we share an alma mater that produces a stronger bond than most schools.
Obama brings a fresh perspective and good ideas, but is a bit soft on executive matters. His foreign policy talks has me exhilirated and very nervous. I am a firm believer in Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick". I don't know if he believes in the big stick. In today's world, I don't trust a president who doesn't. I support Obama's social policies more than McCain's. By quite a bit. I admit and agree that his election will benefit us in re-engaging with the world community. I like his youth, his freshness, and his presence. I believe in him.
So it boils down to this. If I think his foreign policies are going to cost more lives than McCain, I'll vote for McCain. If not, I'll probably vote for Obama. I don't believe in parties. I waited in line for TWO HOURS in 2004 to write in John McCain and Joe Biden on my ballot. Many would argue I "wasted" my vote. But it was mine...it did not belong to Bush or Kerry. In the end, I could live with Obama or McCain, because both have their strengths, and those overcome their flaws.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:I hear you.
I am occasionally a somewhat judgmental person, and I am using fairly stark language in this discussion.
I often get tired of seeing people on the other side of the ideological divide be the only ones expressing their position in strong terms. Sometimes putting your views forth in a nuanced, nice manner feels and looks like weakness. Especially when the folks I’m opposing are espousing views and positions I find morally repugnant, intellectually bankrupt, and/or grotesquely incompatible with their professed religious beliefs.
Can you tell me which of my views are so incomprehensible?
I am curious as to how your worldview is so fundamentally different than mine.
Sure, I'll try. First off, I'm not sure what "side" you're on, if that has any meaning. I think the political division of right and left in this country is oversimplified, if not completely superannuated. With that out of the way though.....
First off, one of the things that seemed to appeal to you about Obama is a commitment to ending global poverty. Now, I dont watch the news, so I don't actually know what he said. Regardless, I'm not inhuman, regardless of what my exes might say, I do think that the suffering of people in say, Dafur, is terrible, but I can't see giving anything of mine, something that might help people I'm close to or help myself, to do anything about it. I think trying to solve all the problems in the world is an act of futility that will only make the haves poorer without really helping the have nots. Its a case of making everyone in the world poor rather than making everyone rich.
Another thing that is that I think, and I may be presuming here, that you accept, tacitly and without reservation, that a egalitarian, representative democracy with equal rights under law is good for everyone all over the world. I'm not so sure myself. I really look at democracy as a sort of popularity contest, or, to make another analogy, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I think masses create their own tyranny, and that a classless society is completely foreign to human experience. I feel that men are not, in fact, created equal, and that egalitarianism is ultimately futile. I think it is particularly inappropriate in the Middle East right now, and I think it is one reason why some people over there hate us so passionately. Basically what I'm getting at is that human organizations are inherently selective, and that to some extent it should be allowed to stay that way.
Which brings me to another point, which is probably not apropos to what I was discussing, but having to do with the original topic...I don't think this clash of cultures has anything to do with religion, or if it does, only tangentially. This is not Christian vs. Muslim. There are many Christian communities right now in the middle of Iran and Iraq, and while I don't doubt that they may have been treated like second class citizens on occasion, I dont think there is any sort of organized anti Christian movement, even amongst the radicals. I learned today that Iran has exceptions to their prohibition of alcohol law for the Eucharist. I think what we really did to the "Islamic Extremists" is hurt their pride. Pride is something older than Islam, probably older than religion. I think it offends them deeply that, as they precieve, we tell them how to run their societies, and perhaps most importantly, how to behave toward women. And, I think that most westerners, particularly on the political left, can't understand that for some "traditional" people, it is better to die than be ashamed or be dishonored.
Anyhow, those are my perceptions.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
dienekes96 wrote:Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.
This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.
We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.
"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.
I do not believe in man's good nature or turn the other cheek. There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. What I do believe in is there are lines we should not cross, Torture is one of them. Yes we might save a few lives by doing it, but we lose our soul in the process. What exactly have we won then? The soul of this nation is worth a few lives.
The other thing to consider is the personal toll. If we use torture then someone has to became a torturer. How does that not warp someone? Are we willing to let him go home to his family? It's very easy to call for violence against someone,being the one that has to do it is hard.
6395
Post by: pablo
edit-deleted by author.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Crimson Devil wrote:dienekes96 wrote:Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.
This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.
We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.
"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.
I do not believe in man's good nature or turn the other cheek. There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. What I do believe in is there are lines we should not cross, Torture is one of them. Yes we might save a few lives by doing it, but we lose our soul in the process. What exactly have we won then? The soul of this nation is worth a few lives.
The other thing to consider is the personal toll. If we use torture then someone has to became a torturer. How does that not warp someone? Are we willing to let him go home to his family? It's very easy to call for violence against someone,being the one that has to do it is hard.
And all those are relevant issues and points. I respect your opinon and Manny's (strange that a believer of evil with the capital E is arguing relativism), I just disgaree slightly. Not sure how this went off course from Obama to torture (mayhaps someone saw my commute yesterday).
221
Post by: Frazzled
Looks like the Obama / Billary bloodfest is continuing.
I guess the question now is: would Obama make a good Vice Presidential candidate for Billary. Would he want it? Would he offer it to her?
*Good VP for Billary. Yes indeedy, especially as he is winning right now. If Billary can trick him into VP status then she’s an epic politician, and it really is good for her.
*Would he want it? Not if he has a brain. A) chances are higher that she will lose the presidency, and he will be dragged down the toilet with her; B) If by a miracle she won, he would have to share power with Bill Clinton-essentially 3rd in Command (but first in blame). Look what happened to Al Gore who lost despite a good economy and peace to pretty much a nobody.
*Would he offer it to her? Not if he’s sane. Again you have the Bill Clinton factor. Do you want Bill Clinton’s loose mouth banging around the White House for the next four years while you’re trying to be President?
241
Post by: Ahtman
jfrazell wrote:Looks like the Obama / Billary bloodfest is continuing.
I guess the question now is: would Obama make a good Vice Presidential candidate for Billary. Would he want it? Would he offer it to her?
I'm going to say no, no, and no. They need someone a bit more moderate to balance out the ticket going into a national election where the questions are harder and the prizes are better.
I don't see him taking it even if offered for the reasons you listed.
I don't see him offering it to her either. Need a moderate to balance the ticket a bit as well as ego and hatred. Sure Hillary is holding up in a contest where just Democrats (mostly) are voting but she has a lot of negatives and a built in hate machine against her he doesn't need. I also don't think he wants the headache of her running around trying to be the Cheney of his administration, or in other words constantly trying to be the power from the passenger seat.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Agreed.
Were I Obama and this situation did arise I’d bow out. Better to get a more thorough level of expertise in the senate for the next time around. Of course that makes him less of a blank slate and a known quantity which would impact his popularity.
I'd posit, who is a remaining moderate in the Democratic Party to balance the ticket, that would work in this circumstance? That’s not one sided-I wonder the inverse on the Republican side. Rice would be my choice but she’s too tied to the Iraq fiasco. I also heard that the state department is being slippery on Durban II, which we should be vociferously boycotting and not leaving Canada out there alone. So she’s out to me.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080310_Time_for_U_S__to_reject_U_N_s_anti-democratic_conference.html
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
I really wish Hillary would have lost bad in Texas/Ohio, but I doubt even that would have made her drop out. She's in it to the end and will do ANYTHING to get the nomination. I listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday because our talk radio station is the only thing that comes in well here at work... and he makes me laugh. He's trying to take credit for Billary winning in those states because he told Republicans/Conservatives to go out and vote for her so they can keep the schism in the Democratic party going. It might be somewhat true. As far as the two of them getting together I seriously doubt it and really don't want it. Billary needs to go away... far far away. So who would take the VP seat for Obama? I've heard some people talking about John Edwards. Not to sure about that. Also heard some rumors about Bill Richardson, but he won't do it. So I don't know who he would offer it to.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Obama would most likely pick someone that gives the aura of experience and has as little political baggage as possible. Kind of like what Bush did by picking Cheney.
Hopefully, Obama is a better judge of character than the current President.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Well the current president doesn't set the bar very high...
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Richardson MIGHT do it.
I think Joe Biden would be a good choice. He's stronger than most Dems and Republicans on foreign policy.
Obama will need some balance on his ticket. A tradeoff for experience. I do not believe he needs a geographic choice (as McCain does, I bet).
5030
Post by: Grignard
dienekes96 wrote:Richardson MIGHT do it.
I think Joe Biden would be a good choice. He's stronger than most Dems and Republicans on foreign policy.
Obama will need some balance on his ticket. A tradeoff for experience. I do not believe he needs a geographic choice (as McCain does, I bet).
What exactly is a geographic choice? Is that someone who is from or identifies with a certain region of the country?
1423
Post by: dienekes96
A geographic choice is a when a candidate from New England chooses a mid-Westerner, or something like that.
If you are particularly weak in the South, you choose a Southern candidate for VP. Crap like that.
5030
Post by: Grignard
double post
5030
Post by: Grignard
dienekes96 wrote:A geographic choice is a when a candidate from New England chooses a mid-Westerner, or something like that.
If you are particularly weak in the South, you choose a Southern candidate for VP. Crap like that.
Yes, I see. I think the South is a particular bugbear for democrats because there are still a lot of traditional southern democrats, aka Dixiecrats around.
A good example is that I have some in-laws who consistently vote democrat in local elections, yet have stances that are usually associated with right wing social politics, i.e. pro-life, anti gay marriage, abstinence education, etc. The best I can figure as far as their reasons go for voting that way are economic and social policy reasons.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Evan Bayh (D-IN) wouldn't be a bad choice for VP for Obama except that they are to close regionally.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
So I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh as I do everyday I have to work (not because I'm a conservative, but because I think the stuff he says is funny and the station comes in clear), and he's playing bits of ol' Obama's pastors sermons. Wow... This guy is hardcore racist. Obama has been going to this church for 20 years. This guy did the wedding for Barrak and Michelle. He baptized their kids. Does this strike anyone else as... well alarming? I find myself now debating if Obama is the right choice. I hate to pin what one guy says on him, but when you listen to the sound bites you can hear the people in the background chanting. Who says Obama and his wife weren't some of those people?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
This one?
Hillary Ain’t Never Been Called A N*****
Who cares about what I’m going through? Who cares about what poor people have to put up with? Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people?
Somebody missed that — you got nervous, because we got some white members here. I’m still in Bible country. I am still in [unintelligible].
Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.
It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged.
Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold.
Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong…
I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it!
Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was! Barack knows what it means to be a black man livin’ in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that!
Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons! Hillary ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folks who [unintelligible] everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sittin’ in the White House!
Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled and run by rich white people!
He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness.
Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she wasn’t white enough!
Jesus had his own people sidin’ with the enemy!
That’s why I love Jesus, y’all. He never let their hatred dampen his hope. …[.quote]
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Yes... that is the one.
This guy is so blind by his hatred of white people that his rant makes no sense. I could go on and pick this entire thing apart, but that will do nothing but derail this thread which I feel is filled with intelligent and legitimate posts.
I don't want to believe that Obama shares these views, but this guy is a huge influence in his life. He's even said so. How do you go to a church for 20 years and listen to this absolute blind trash and not pick up some of it?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Is that "hardcore racist"? It's definitely talking about race, and it's ranting a bit, but speaking as a white guy, I don't think it's racist. Where do you see him expressing hatred towards white people? Do I think he's exaggerating and over-dramatizing? Sure. Do I see hatred in it? Not at all.
I'm definitely unhappy to see him talking so much about politicians in terms that look like an endorsement. Of course several of the candidates in this race have been treading on or crossing that line with church speaking engagements, but two wrongs don't make a right.
This is one of my big disappointments with American politics; that so many religious groups can't seem to keep their tax-exempt mouths out of politics.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Expanding on that a bit, Obama was raised and went to school in Indonesia until he was eight. His father was Kenyan, and his mother white. He moved back to the US when he was eight and was raised by his (white) grandparents. He flourished and was a great student, but in his upbringing he clearly was not part of the typical black American experience.
In working with inner city groups and joining this church, he educated himself in the issues and problems that many black Americans care about and have internalized. By doing so he made himself more one of them; he joined that social and religious community more fully.
Having been raised by a white mother and her white parents, and having clearly had a happy and successful childhood and young adulthood, do you think he would choose to attend a church which actually hated white people?
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Mann, how can you not feel that this is racist? If I came out and said "White people can't be successful in the hip hop industry because we're white. The black man has this industry locked down and refuses to let a White man get the microphone and speak rhymes of truth because White men don't know what it's like to be poor. White men don't know what the struggle is because they're white. Eminem was a token we were given because we gave the black man Colin Powell." I guarantee I would be branded a racist. Not a word of that is true and not a word of what this jackass said is true. Jesus wasn't black, not all black people are poor in this country. Not all white people are super rich. Just because this guy is black does NOT give him the right to spew this and then call everyone who bats an eye racist.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:Is that "hardcore racist"? It's definitely talking about race, and it's ranting a bit, but speaking as a white guy, I don't think it's racist. Where do you see him expressing hatred towards white people? Do I think he's exaggerating and over-dramatizing? Sure. Do I see hatred in it? Not at all.
I'm definitely unhappy to see him talking so much about politicians in terms that look like an endorsement. Of course several of the candidates in this race have been treading on or crossing that line with church speaking engagements, but two wrongs don't make a right.
This is one of my big disappointments with American politics; that so many religious groups can't seem to keep their tax-exempt mouths out of politics.
A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.
B. Why are you dissapointed that religious groups want to participate in politics? Organizations by their very nature strive to lobby for the most favorable outcome for their members and the success of the organization as a whole? It isnt any different, than NOW, the NRA, the AARP, or any other organization. In fact, I like to think of them as superorganisms making decisions and comunicating with other entities, very much like you or I campaigning for a candidate or going to vote ( well, you, because I simply dont vote, I opt out). And if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and head off the whole seperation of church and state thing at the pass. I think religious organizations have the same rights as any other organization, and that doesnt equate with having a state religion or sacred involvement in secular affairs.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
ST, the things you just said and the things I quoted do not match. He never said "all white people are super rich", at least not in what I quoted. Nor did he say that all black people are poor.
How can you say that "not a word of that is true"?
Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?
Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?
Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?
We don't know what race Jesus was. Arguments have been made based on biblical text (such as having hair "like wool" and feet "like unto fine brass") that he is black. Modern and historical images of him here and in Europe mostly portray him as white, whereas those in African churches usually have him as black. Images in Latin America or Japan often show his features as matching their people. The most likely candidate is that he was middle-eastern, ethnically, but we don't know for sure and many different people have claimed him as one of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
Do I think the guy's exaggerating and distorting the issue? Certainly. Obama wasn't really raised in a single-parent home. He had a mother and a stepfather, then two loving grandparents when he came back to the US. He wasn't poor either. And I strongly doubt that the teachers he had made him work "twice as hard" to get a passing grade. The guy's VERY smart and hardworking, but I'm sure he had good and supportive teachers too.
But he DOES have more direct knowledge and experience of prejudice and of the issues and perspective of black Americans than any white American can. That's the core message of the rant, and it's accurate.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.
onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)
noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
I'm not seeing it.
Grignard wrote:B. Why are you dissapointed that religious groups want to participate in politics? Organizations by their very nature strive to lobby for the most favorable outcome for their members and the success of the organization as a whole? It isnt any different, than NOW, the NRA, the AARP, or any other organization. In fact, I like to think of them as superorganisms making decisions and comunicating with other entities, very much like you or I campaigning for a candidate or going to vote ( well, you, because I simply dont vote, I opt out). And if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and head off the whole seperation of church and state thing at the pass. I think religious organizations have the same rights as any other organization, and that doesnt equate with having a state religion or sacred involvement in secular affairs.
Churches, churchgoers, and preachers have every right to be politically involved, and even to speak about political issues.
What they (along with every other group defined as a nonprofit under section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) are forbidden to do by Federal tax law is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. It's against the law.
This law gets bent or broken every election, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of churches are really good and scrupulous about this, but a lot of others break it willfully, because they prefer to take advantage of the law when it comes to their money and contributions, and break the law when it comes to endorsing and working for candidates.
http://projectfairplay.org/brochure/
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:ST, the things you just said and the things I quoted do not match. He never said "all white people are super rich", at least not in what I quoted. Nor did he say that all black people are poor.
It dosent matter what was litterally said, it is about tone.
Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?
No.......I doubt she has been called that. I imagine it is because she is caucasian. How does it make her a better candidate if she was?
Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?
This day and age? I doubt it. You'd be fired by your company if the fact that you were doing that came out. I think we would hear about it if it was happening regularly. God knows people love to be a victim of something.
Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?
Why does this matter? Obama isnt exactly begging on the street. Furthermore, people often become wealthy from being in influential positions in government, so it could be a case of putting the horse before the cart.
Mannahnin wrote:
We don't know what race Jesus was. Arguments have been made based on biblical text (such as having hair "like wool" and feet "like unto fine brass") that he is black. Modern and historical images of him here and in Europe mostly portray him as white, whereas those in African churches usually have him as black. Images in Latin America or Japan often show his features as matching their people. The most likely candidate is that he was middle-eastern, ethnically, but we don't know for sure and many different people have claimed him as one of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
But making the tacit assumption he was black is not true. Why does anyone care about this anyhow?
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:Grignard wrote:A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.
onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)
noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
I feel it is. I think you arent realizing that being passive agressive is just as bad as being actively agressive. That whole attitude is the belief in the superiority of a victim. It offended me.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:
Churches, churchgoers, and preachers have every right to be politically involved, and even to speak about political issues.
What they (along with every other group defined as a nonprofit under section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) are forbidden to do by Federal tax law is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. It's against the law.
This law gets bent or broken every election, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of churches are really good and scrupulous about this, but a lot of others break it willfully, because they prefer to take advantage of the law when it comes to their money and contributions, and break the law when it comes to endorsing and working for candidates.
http://projectfairplay.org/brochure/
I'm interpreting this as meaning donating tax free monies to candidates. Furthermore your source is hardly unbiased.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:It dosent matter what was litterally said, it is about tone.
“It doesn’t matter what is literally said”? Did you actually just write that? In public?
Of course it matters what is literally said. You can claim all day to know what someone means based on their “tone”, but people can be angry and passionate without being hateful. This guy is far step down from MLK, but Dr. King sure yelled and sounded angry in a lot of his speeches and sermons. But MLK was never hateful. Again, I am NOT equating this guy with Dr. King. But Dr. King is a clear and wonderful example of the tradition this preacher is no doubt trying to emulate, albeit in a flawed and inferior form.
Grignard wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?
No.......I doubt she has been called that. I imagine it is because she is caucasian. How does it make her a better candidate if she was?
Apply two seconds of thought to this, I beg you. The preacher is making the point that Obama is the candidate who shares the personal experiences of black Americans and can understand their perspective.
Grignard wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?
This day and age? I doubt it. You'd be fired by your company if the fact that you were doing that came out. I think we would hear about it if it was happening regularly. God knows people love to be a victim of something.
This is the exact attitude Colbert lampoons every time he has a black person on the show and pretends to be unable to see their race. While we've made great strides against racism as a nation, that doesn't mean you can just pretend that it doesn't exist.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/06us1.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ltJ4RRZZCv4&watch_response
No one LIKES to be a victim. A lot of people DO play the victim, or try to trade on being victimized for sympathy. Certainly. That’s a problem. But racism is certainly an issue, and difficulties for black men being picked up by cabs are so widely-known that it’s actually been the subject of academic studies. Again, it's just the preacher picking a widely-known example of a part of the black experience that Obama knows more about. Is it a great argument? No, not really. Does it have anything to do with hate? Certainly not.
Mannahnin wrote:Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?
Why does this matter? Obama isnt exactly begging on the street. Furthermore, people often become wealthy from being in influential positions in government, so it could be a case of putting the horse before the cart.
No, of course he’s not poor. I just wrote that. If he was poor he’d never have a chance in politics. You don’t get into politics to make money (though if you're in the right position you can make your friends (*cough* Enron *cough*) obscene amounts of money, and can be set up for life in the private sector once you leave. You need an ungodly amount of money to get the job in the first place. So it's almost always people with personal fortunes who get elected to major offices.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_horrified_to_learn
grignard wrote:But making the tacit assumption he was black is not true. Why does anyone care about this anyhow?
It's not a tacit assumption, it's a belief held by some people. Particularly members of African churches, or American black churches influenced by the arguments I quoted.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:Mannahnin wrote:onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)
noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
I feel it is. I think you arent realizing that being passive agressive is just as bad as being actively agressive. That whole attitude is the belief in the superiority of a victim. It offended me.
That's not what passive-aggressive means.
http://onelook.com/?w=passive-aggressive&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a
If you're getting offended by it, or "belief in the superiority of a victim", I don't know what to say. He's expressing the opinion that a person who shares common experiences with him, and with his congregation, is the person better equipped to represent his interests. Is he making a calm, rational, reasoned case, appealing to logic? No, he's making an emotional case, and doing it in a loud, attention-getting way. Most preachers (white or black) express themselves that way when speaking publically.
That's a far cry from claiming one person is BETTER than another person, or inherently superior to them as a person.
5030
Post by: Grignard
But why the anger? Ive never done anything to anyone just because they were black or of any extraction. Can you not see how I could at least be threatened by this? I can't understand why people like this are out to get people like me.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
So I have to be literal to be racist? Hmm. Ok, so if I say... Black people sho love fried chicken and watermelon. That's not racist is it? I didn't say anything about hating them, I just stated a stereotype. However, if I do infact say this I WILL be branded a racist. So, on the flip side, if a black person says "White people don't know what it's like to be poor, to be overlooked, to be called racial slurs." that's ok? Because he doesn't add "and that's why I hate those crackers" at the end means he's not racist? Both are stereotypes and both are very incorrect. Yet because of the color of the skin of the person saying them you will not get an equal reaction.
5030
Post by: Grignard
And that is exactly the definition of passive agressive! It is in the very link that was posted.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
How is he out to get you? Where in that text is there any threat?
If you read the darn text, he’s angry at racism, and at black people who fail to recognize the fact that Obama is the candidate who best represents them.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Grignard wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Churches, churchgoers, and preachers have every right to be politically involved, and even to speak about political issues.
What they (along with every other group defined as a nonprofit under section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) are forbidden to do by Federal tax law is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. It's against the law.
This law gets bent or broken every election, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of churches are really good and scrupulous about this, but a lot of others break it willfully, because they prefer to take advantage of the law when it comes to their money and contributions, and break the law when it comes to endorsing and working for candidates.
http://projectfairplay.org/brochure/
I'm interpreting this as meaning donating tax free monies to candidates. Furthermore your source is hardly unbiased.
You've gotta be joking. New thread time.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Sorry, but this looks like the classic "If whites hate blacks they are racist, but if blacks hate whites it's just desserts for the all the horrible wrongs they did to them". No, it doesn't work this way. If you hate someone because of the color of their skin it's racism no matter which side you fall on. I live in Albuquerque New Mexico. I deal with Hispanics that have "Brown Pride" tattooed on their head and bitch about how they can't get a job because the white man hates them. Somehow, we're the ones that are wrong. However, if I were to walk around with "White Pride tattooed on my head I wouldn't get to apply for a job because I'd get beat down in a parking lot for being a white supremacist. Being a minority doesn't make it ok to be racist.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Look I dont care. I'm not a particularly relgious man, but I was under the impression that people could support the political candidates they want. So it is illegal for a preacher to tell his congregation that he believes a certain candidate reflects the values of the faith???
This is why I dont deal with this. I have no idea why I even mentioned anything. I don't read the news, I dont vote. Talking about this just makes me physically ill. You can't change anything, and even trying to just causes dissention and makes people unhappy.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Stormtrooper X wrote:Sorry, but this looks like the classic "If whites hate blacks they are racist, but if blacks hate whites it's just desserts for the all the horrible wrongs they did to them". No, it doesn't work this way. If you hate someone because of the color of their skin it's racism no matter which side you fall on. I live in Albuquerque New Mexico. I deal with Hispanics that have "Brown Pride" tattooed on their head and bitch about how they can't get a job because the white man hates them. Somehow, we're the ones that are wrong. However, if I were to walk around with "White Pride tattooed on my head I wouldn't get to apply for a job because I'd get beat down in a parking lot for being a white supremacist. Being a minority doesn't make it ok to be racist.
And to me it sounds like you’re accusing a person of expressing hatred when he expresses anger at societal inequality. They’re two different things.
People express pride in their ethnic heritage all the time. Irish pride. Italian pride. Polish pride. Whatever. It’s not racist to be proud of your heritage and to get in touch with your roots.
What I will note is that all of the ethnic groups I just mentioned above are groups which were looked down on, discriminated against, and marginalized when they first immigrated to America. 150 years ago you could find signs in shop windows in New York saying “Help Wanted- No Irish”. It’s a common reaction for people who are oppressed and mistreated to embrace their difference and to call upon it as a source of strength.
Black Pride comes from the same exact source, only American blacks had it much worse than my Irish immigrant ancestors. My Irish ancestors weren’t property. They weren’t considered nonhuman. They weren’t bred or slaughtered like animals. There are horrible crimes in the past of our nation, and they inform the lives and identities of any black person here who cares at all about their ancestry or heritage. Do we need to get past it? Of course. Does this mean we can forget it or pretend it didn’t happen? Or that the effects still linger and impact people’s lives today? No, sadly not.
White Pride is a term used by actual racist and terrorist groups, like the KKK. By association the term has gained evil implications. Just like the swastika once meant other things and had positive associations in some cultures, today it’s impossible to use it without invoking the memory of the Nazis.
Claiming that there’s no difference between the phrases Black Pride or White Pride is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the cultural associations and history associated with the phrases.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
This is why I dont deal with this. I have no idea why I even mentioned anything. I don't read the news, I dont vote. Talking about this just makes me physically ill. You can't change anything, and even trying to just causes dissention and makes people unhappy.
To heck with that. Every good thing we have in life is the result of people working hard to change things and make them better.
That's the power given to us by the divine, and the responsibility owed to our children and the world.
Without it we'd still be in caves eating berries and carrion.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:This one?
Hillary Ain’t Never Been Called A N*****
Who cares about what I’m going through? Who cares about what poor people have to put up with? Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people?
Somebody missed that — you got nervous, because we got some white members here. I’m still in Bible country. I am still in [unintelligible].
Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.
It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged.
Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold.
Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong…
I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it!
Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was! Barack knows what it means to be a black man livin’ in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that!
Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons! Hillary ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folks who [unintelligible] everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sittin’ in the White House!
Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled and run by rich white people!
He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness.
Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she wasn’t white enough!
Jesus had his own people sidin’ with the enemy!
That’s why I love Jesus, y’all. He never let their hatred dampen his hope. …[.quote]
You missed the one we he called upon everyone to sing "God Damn America,"  equated American troops with assassins, said we (the US) were the ones who put Mandela in Jail and said were deserved it (9/11) because we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in unwarranted wars. The guy is not only a racist but an A-1 wack job. When you attend the Church of the Nutjob for 20, that calls your judgement into question.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mannahnin wrote:This is why I dont deal with this. I have no idea why I even mentioned anything. I don't read the news, I dont vote. Talking about this just makes me physically ill. You can't change anything, and even trying to just causes dissention and makes people unhappy.
To heck with that. Every good thing we have in life is the result of people working hard to change things and make them better.
That's the power given to us by the divine, and the responsibility owed to our children and the world.
Without it we'd still be in caves eating berries and carrion.
I don't care. I don't have children, and the world is something I just quit caring about.
5030
Post by: Grignard
And tell me when I can stop feeling guilty for something that happened over a century ago and that I played no part in.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Stormtrooper X wrote:So I have to be literal to be racist? Hmm. Ok, so if I say... Black people sho love fried chicken and watermelon. That's not racist is it? I didn't say anything about hating them, I just stated a stereotype. However, if I do infact say this I WILL be branded a racist. So, on the flip side, if a black person says "White people don't know what it's like to be poor, to be overlooked, to be called racial slurs." that's ok? Because he doesn't add "and that's why I hate those crackers" at the end means he's not racist? Both are stereotypes and both are very incorrect. Yet because of the color of the skin of the person saying them you will not get an equal reaction.
And Man, I don't mean to offend you by this, but why dont you come down to where I live and you can see plenty of white people ( And black ones!) who know exactly what it is like to be poor, and to be called racial or ethnic slurs. The average yearly income for a single person is just over 16000 per year in the county just adjacent to mine. The number of families under the poverty line is approaching a third. Incidentally they are predominantly white, though there are quite a few African americans there living in the same conditions.
5030
Post by: Grignard
I'm sorry. The figure I quoted was per capita, which is a little different.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:You missed the one we he called upon everyone to sing "God Damn America," equated American troops with assassins, said we (the US) were the ones who put Mandela in Jail and said were deserved it (9/11) because we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in unwarranted wars. The guy is not only a racist but an A-1 wack job. When you attend the Church of the Nutjob for 20, that calls your judgement into question.
He's definitely said some crazy things.
But then, Pat Robertson also said we should kill Chavez, and that 9/11 happened because America had offended god. And that's before we get into any of the stuff in his book "The New World Order."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
It seems that a number of charismatic and popular religious leaders get eccentric and strange as they get older.
I expect his regular sermons were less of this and more "love they neighbor" and "help those who can't help themselves".
5030
Post by: Grignard
Two wrongs don't make a right. Bringing up old Pat doesn't really change anything.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Certainly not. But a lot of conservative politicians have been associated with or endorsed by him. Let’s not pretend that Obama’s preacher is the first instance of something like this.
Grignard wrote:I don't care. I don't have children, and the world is something I just quit caring about
Sorry to hear that. I know it’s hard. It’s hard for all of us. Most of the time I’m lazy and self-centered. I don’t get out and work for campaigns and volunteer as much as I feel that I should. I donate here are there to charities and to political organizations which fight for principles I believe in. Every once in a while I get motivated to actually do something to improve the world. For (a little less than) three years I worked getting homeless people into shelters, and taking child abuse reports at night. Nowadays I work for a private company in part so I can afford to live a more comfortable life, to travel, and to start a family. But it’s still a company where we help people, because that’s important to me.
Grignard wrote:And tell me when I can stop feeling guilty for something that happened over a century ago and that I played no part in.
No one told you to feel guilty for it. But you shouldn’t act like it doesn’t still impact the world today, or that black people don’t still face racism.
Grignard wrote:And Man, I don't mean to offend you by this, but why dont you come down to where I live and you can see plenty of white people ( And black ones!) who know exactly what it is like to be poor, and to be called racial or ethnic slurs. The average yearly income for a single person is just over 16000 per year in the county just adjacent to mine. The number of families under the poverty line is approaching a third. Incidentally they are predominantly white, though there are quite a few African americans there living in the same conditions.
I completely agree that poverty is a bigger issue than race. Poverty is certainly the main cause of suffering, of lack of opportunity, of hopelessness in people’s lives all over the world.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Well, good to hear that we agree on that. Maybe that is why I'm so upset these days. It seems like all these different political parties could come to some kind of common ground.
I'm just as bad though, I'm not very good at debating. I'm not an idiot, but once I try to argue something I'm not a very clear thinker, I'll give you that. Probably something I need to work on.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I appreciate you making the effort to express the things you believe in. Even if I heartily disagree with them.  To quote that classic paraphrase of Voltaire (actually written by Hall)- “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
My brother’s favorite candidate in this race was John Edwards. When he was still in the race I was definitely undecided. He was the one candidate who really cared about that issue. It’s terribly ironic that so many impoverished voters oppose politicians who might actually make things better for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:jfrazell wrote:You missed the one we he called upon everyone to sing "God Damn America," equated American troops with assassins, said we (the US) were the ones who put Mandela in Jail and said were deserved it (9/11) because we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in unwarranted wars. The guy is not only a racist but an A-1 wack job. When you attend the Church of the Nutjob for 20, that calls your judgement into question.
He's definitely said some crazy things.
But then, Pat Robertson also said we should kill Chavez, and that 9/11 happened because America had offended god. And that's before we get into any of the stuff in his book "The New World Order."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
It seems that a number of charismatic and popular religious leaders get eccentric and strange as they get older.
I expect his regular sermons were less of this and more "love they neighbor" and "help those who can't help themselves".
Correct however:
1) Pat Robertson has been castigated as a nutjob. This one should be as well.
2) You don't stay in a church headed by a minister like that. You just don't unless there is something wrong with you as well.
5030
Post by: Grignard
For what it is worth, I think Pat Robertson was foolish to talk about Chavez like that, and I know he's not that stupid. I think Chavez is a blowhard, who somehow thinks he is a sort of reincarnated commie Simon Bolivar. He wouldn't be any threat to us at all if we weren't stuck buying oil from the OPEC countries. I don't shop at Citgo stations, not that that will make any difference.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
jfrazell wrote:Correct however:
1) Pat Robertson has been castigated as a nutjob. This one should be as well.
2) You don't stay in a church headed by a minister like that. You just don't unless there is something wrong with you as well.
1. I don't think too many people were castigating Robertson back in 1992 when The New World Order came out. I do remember a president prominently using that phrase in a speech around then.
2. Depends on how often he makes with the crazy, how long it's been going on, and how many other ministers are there who aren't saying crazy and offensive things. If it's something he's descended into as he aged and got closer to retirement (he left last month, right?), and other more reasonable folks have gradually been taking over during the same time, it is something a reasonable person might tolerate. I'm sure a lot of 700 Club watchers were pretty shocked and offended when Pat said god deliberately let 9/11 happen to punish us.
171
Post by: Lorek
Grignard wrote:I don't shop at Citgo stations, not that that will make any difference.
It does make a difference. It shows that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and not be a hypocrite, and that's a rare and good thing these days. Lead by example!
(I too refuse to shop at Citgo.)
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Grignard wrote:Stormtrooper X wrote:So I have to be literal to be racist? Hmm. Ok, so if I say... Black people sho love fried chicken and watermelon. That's not racist is it? I didn't say anything about hating them, I just stated a stereotype. However, if I do infact say this I WILL be branded a racist. So, on the flip side, if a black person says "White people don't know what it's like to be poor, to be overlooked, to be called racial slurs." that's ok? Because he doesn't add "and that's why I hate those crackers" at the end means he's not racist? Both are stereotypes and both are very incorrect. Yet because of the color of the skin of the person saying them you will not get an equal reaction.
And Man, I don't mean to offend you by this, but why dont you come down to where I live and you can see plenty of white people ( And black ones!) who know exactly what it is like to be poor, and to be called racial or ethnic slurs. The average yearly income for a single person is just over 16000 per year in the county just adjacent to mine. The number of families under the poverty line is approaching a third. Incidentally they are predominantly white, though there are quite a few African americans there living in the same conditions.
I know what it's like to be a poor white person. I can take you to entire towns of poor white people where none of them make significant amounts of money. And I do know what its like to be called racial slurs. I went to a school that was 50% Native American, 45% Hispanic/Mexican (and don't you dare get the two confused or they'll cut you) and 5% other. Guess which part my white ass fit in. You get to watch your back all day because some chump doesn't like the fact that you're white and some ass hat like this preacher says white people are the cause of all his problems.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Iorek wrote:Grignard wrote:I don't shop at Citgo stations, not that that will make any difference.
It does make a difference. It shows that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and not be a hypocrite, and that's a rare and good thing these days. Lead by example!
(I too refuse to shop at Citgo.)
The only thing is I really don't know how the petroleum industry works. Probably most of the others buy Venezuelan crude. Someone told me that British Petroleum doesn't, but I don't know if that is true. I have a hard time believing they rely totally on North Sea drilling. It is just that from what I understand, Citgo is a nationalized company of the Venezuelan government.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't hold this wack job against Obama. He's the same as Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptist Church. You bet your ass it's racist and ignorant. I like his costume though.
How come of the people of the book only the Jews seem to have it together? Just kidding, they got their nuts to.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Yes, CITGO is a Venezuelan company, but wasn't always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo
We don't have too many 7-11s down here. Lot's of Chevron and Shell stations.
@Ahtman - The difference between this joker and Pat Robertson is Obama went to this guys church for 20 years. He refers to him as his mentor and one of his closest friends. He worked on the campaign until just recently. The presidents that Pat Robertson endorsed didn't actively go to his church.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Gignard, if you're interested you can check out this - http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=UK
The UK actually doesn't import oil. The North Sea reserves allow them to export extra oil.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Stormtrooper X wrote:I know what it's like to be a poor white person. I can take you to entire towns of poor white people where none of them make significant amounts of money. And I do know what its like to be called racial slurs. I went to a school that was 50% Native American, 45% Hispanic/Mexican (and don't you dare get the two confused or they'll cut you) and 5% other. Guess which part my white ass fit in. You get to watch your back all day because some chump doesn't like the fact that you're white and some ass hat like this preacher says white people are the cause of all his problems.
Yup. Poverty is the real killer. But I'm still not seeing where he said that white people are the cause of "all his problems". There is a reasonable basis to say that black poverty and inequality does have its roots in slavery. Poor white (or hispanic, or whatever) folks don't generally have rich people in their family tree either. Their families and ancestors have been poor as well, and they've had reduced opportunities as a result. The descendents of slaves just started even further down the ladder, socially and economically.
The unfortunate reality is that black people, even if wealthy or well educated (though those things certainly mitigate the problem to a great extent), are physically identifiable and associated with that legacy, and easily picked out for discrimination by prejudiced people. The continuing presense of racism and its impact slows their advancement as a subgroup within our society. The exact EXTENT to which it hurts them is probably debatable and undoubtedly exaggerated by some people. But neither you nor I, nor Hillary Clinton have walked a mile in their shoes or are able to see exactly how much daily impact it has. We can't really know. Which is, I think, the guy's central point.
As a white guy, unless I'm missing teeth, have open sores, and/or am unable to manage decent diction, all I need is some clean clothes and a decent haircut to look just as appealing and sympathetic to a cab driver or a cop as a rich kid.
ahtman wrote:How come of the people of the book only the Jews seem to have it together? Just kidding, they got their nuts to.
I think all you monotheists are loons.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Good night Mannahnin, I thought I sat on the left side of the bench.
Look, minorities have just as much of a chance to succeed in this wonderful country as either you or I do. In fact, they have a better shot at it. They can go to college for free, get priority when it comes to jobs and in some cases don't have to pay taxes. Now some will say that this only makes sense because all of the horrible things us Europeans did to them. Uh, news flash, I didn't make your ancestors pick cotton or give them small pox infested blankets... and guess what, it wasn't you out there picking cotton either. What I'm getting at here is when is it enough? When do the descendants of people have to stop paying for what their ancestors did?
And as far as blaming white people for his problems, he refers to us as his enemies. I don't know about you, but when I refer to someone as my "enemy" it's not because I embrace them with love and understanding, it's because I despise them and wish to see them dead.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Exactly which minorities are we talking about?
While poverty is more important, race is not trivial or insignificant.
I cannot see any evidence to suggest that a person from a minority ethnic group has “a better shot” at success than I do. That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh “persecuted majority” fantasy. Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
How exactly can they go to college for free? Any how many of them can do so? Statistics or at least examples, please. There are certainly scholarship programs out there, but scholarships exist for all sorts of groups (and for high-achieving students in general) not just for racial minorities. Here’s one for people with Cystic Fibrosis:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85940.php
Scholarships rarely allow people to go to school “for free”. Most of the time they partially defray the costs.
“Don’t have to pay taxes”? Can you cite me some examples? Taxes are generally based on income, which again is a poverty issue, not a racial issue. If a higher percentage of minorities are too poor to owe taxes, that’s not an advantage. Just the opposite.
Priority for jobs is another matter, and is its own whole discussion. I disagree that it’s enough by itself to equate to more success or a better chance than you or I.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Stormtrooper X wrote:And as far as blaming white people for his problems, he refers to us as his enemies. I don't know about you, but when I refer to someone as my "enemy" it's not because I embrace them with love and understanding, it's because I despise them and wish to see them dead.
I have certainly had people I thought of as enemies who I didn’t wish dead. As a Christian, that would seem to be one of the central tenets of this preacher’s worldview and philosophy. I believe he referred to Jesus’ teaching of “love thine enemy” in the next sentence of his speech.
And I again think you’re misinterpreting the remark. He is ranting (in an admittedly somewhat paranoid fashion) about “rich white people”, who control the country and in his view keep other people down. In think the key words there are “rich” and “control”. White is only a factor inasmuch as it’s different from black, and people naturally favor others who are more like themselves. He’s saying that most of the people in positions of power and influence in this country are wealthy and white. Which is pretty accurate. And he’s saying that if you are visibly different from the people in power, you are in a disadvantageous situation. Do I think he focuses too much on that issue, dramatizing it and exaggerating it? Quite possibly. But maybe this particular subject isn't really his main focus. Maybe his church focuses most of its efforts on community outreach and building people up. That would seem to be how Obama got involved.
He’s also ranting against “hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness”. He’s saying those are the qualities of his “enemies”. Which indicates to me that a particular subgroup, namely wealthy, influential racists, are the ones he is calling his enemies.
While I think he’s not communicating his central point very effectively, and he’s obviously scaring some people, I don’t think the central message of this particular sermon / rant is a scary one.
Now the stuff about putting Mandela in jail, or his overdramatic “god damn America” rant. That stuff is pretty crazy.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Mannahnin wrote:Exactly which minorities are we talking about?
While poverty is more important, race is not trivial or insignificant.
I cannot see any evidence to suggest that a person from a minority ethnic group has “a better shot” at success than I do. That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh “persecuted majority” fantasy. Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Unfortunately no, I can't. While they have more opportunities it doesn't mean they take them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Mannahnin wrote:How exactly can they go to college for free? Any how many of them can do so? Statistics or at least examples, please. There are certainly scholarship programs out there, but scholarships exist for all sorts of groups (and for high-achieving students in general) not just for racial minorities. Here’s one for people with Cystic Fibrosis:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85940.php
Scholarships rarely allow people to go to school “for free”. Most of the time they partially defray the costs.
If you have a census number (depends on which tribe you are from, if the tribe is recognized and if you meet the blood requirements of the tribe) there are plenty other options. They don't always post them on the internet, but at local clinics around here you can see adds for Natives to go to school (all the way to a PhD) for free.
http://www.fortlewis.edu/current_students/financial_aid/nat_amer.asp
Mannahnin wrote:“Don’t have to pay taxes”? Can you cite me some examples? Taxes are generally based on income, which again is a poverty issue, not a racial issue. If a higher percentage of minorities are too poor to owe taxes, that’s not an advantage. Just the opposite.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/674.pdf
It works the same way here in New Mexico. Also, if you purchase something like say, a brand new vehicle, and take it back to the reservation you no longer have to pay for it since they can't come reposes it. There was a dealership here a few years back who started refusing to sell vehicles to natives because of this and of course they sued (and won).
Natives also receive free health care from IHS.
Mannahnin wrote:Priority for jobs is another matter, and is its own whole discussion. I disagree that it’s enough by itself to equate to more success or a better chance than you or I.
Try working at a casino.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Mannahnin wrote:And I again think you’re misinterpreting the remark.
And I think your giving him to much leeway in interpreting what he means to say. One of those, "well what he's really trying to say..." moments. If you are constantly defending someone by having to parse all their language and interpret in some other fashion, then the other person is probably doing something wrong.
Mannahnin wrote:
He’s also ranting against “hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness”.
And he's doing it by being using hatred, bigotry, and small-mindedness, and as you can see, it's winning friends and influencing people. This is the kinda of idiocy the Dr. Cosby has been arguing against for years now.
5385
Post by: gamefiend
Stormtrooper X wrote:Good night Mannahnin, I thought I sat on the left side of the bench.
Look, minorities have just as much of a chance to succeed in this wonderful country as either you or I do. In fact, they have a better shot at it. They can go to college for free, get priority when it comes to jobs and in some cases don't have to pay taxes. Now some will say that this only makes sense because all of the horrible things us Europeans did to them. Uh, news flash, I didn't make your ancestors pick cotton or give them small pox infested blankets... and guess what, it wasn't you out there picking cotton either. What I'm getting at here is when is it enough? When do the descendants of people have to stop paying for what their ancestors did?
As a black man, I'm going to have to call " bs" on you right here. I've never gotten priority for any of my tech jobs. I've never gotten a tech job where I didn't phone interview (where my "irish" sounding name, technical skills, and "non-black" manner of speech made it impossible for an interviewer to tell that I was black) first. I've worked harder than all of my IT co-workers in every job I've ever had and just been told to work harder, getting paid less for more. It hasn't been until my current job where there are great people who judge me by my work and not my race that I've been able to even enjoy the tech industry, and to advance in my field. I can't believe I've found a company that actually rewards hard work.
Let me tell you something about how I grew up in rural white america. Lower middle class (a step up from when we lived in NYC), Honor roll student, in gifted and talented, harassed *constantly* by teachers and police and never doing anything to deserve it. My grandparents moved to that town and my uncles and aunts were constantly fighting, constantly under attack. I've worked hard for everything that I now have. My whole family has worked very very hard for everything that we now have. We have moved through the inertia of racism at various levels of society to move towards "the American Dream". And you know what? We don't begrudge anyone for it. I'll never hold someone else responsible for what I can change.
What makes me angry however, is when people like yourself attempt to deny me my experience. This is not about slavery, silly man, it's about what happens *right now*, today, in America. The fact is that you do not have the knowledge (neither you nor Mrs Ferraro) to say that being a black man is anything but a disadvantage in American life.
Pointing at the few scholarships that are awarded based on race (which completely ignores the chronic underfunding of the inner-city schools that would give these students the skills and motivation they need to get into college in the first place), or pointing to the supposed desire every black person has for slavery reparations...these are just straw men. Of course there are people who believe these sort of things, but there are also white people who believe we need to go back to the days of slavery and segregation, and that God has little better to do than strike down all non-whites in fury. Would you like me to judge you based on their misguided thoughts? The majority of black people are like the majority of white/yellow/purple people -- trying to get by, trying to live their lives in relative peace and comfort. Crazy people, misguided people, are everywhere and in every group, but to say those people represent the majority is equally crazy/misguided.
But hey, if you know where that magical "black guys get it soooooooo much easier than everyone" bus is, please ---PLEASE --let me know where it is so I can buy a ticket.
Or would I just get one for free, knowing all the wondrous holy power that has been bestown upon me?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Stormtrooper X wrote:Mannahnin wrote:I cannot see any evidence to suggest that a person from a minority ethnic group has “a better shot” at success than I do. That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh “persecuted majority” fantasy. Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Unfortunately no, I can't. While they have more opportunities it doesn't mean they take them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I'm not calling you a racist, but you seem to be expressing a racist idea. You have expressed the opinion that ethnic AKA "racial" minorities have a BETTER chance of succeeding economically and socially in this country, and are now admitting that you don't have actual evidence or proof to support that claim. And instead of retracting it you suggest that it is their choice not to take these alleged opportunities? Are you reading from David Duke's script?
I'm sure the Native American population is important and numerically significant in your region, but all the programs and references (like casino work) you posted are specifically for Native American people, who represent 1.5% of the US population as of the 2000 census, as opposed to 12.9% black, 12.5% Hispanic, 4.2% Asian, or 2.4 who report at least two, not including mixed-race Native Americans (who are all counted in the Native American population; it’s just over a third of their 1.5%). If you want to start a thread decrying the governmental advantages they get, feel free. But I don't think it's particularly germane to complaints of racism against blacks or against minorities in general, which are what Wright's talking about.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Ahtman wrote:Mannahnin wrote:And I again think you’re misinterpreting the remark.
And I think your giving him to much leeway in interpreting what he means to say. One of those, "well what he's really trying to say..." moments. If you are constantly defending someone by having to parse all their language and interpret in some other fashion, then the other person is probably doing something wrong.
I'm only parsing it to explain it to other people. I got his point on the first read. I didn't feel threatened or hated.
Some people also felt threatened by Dr. MLK. Those people were racists and fools. Wright is certainly no MLK. He's said some genuinely crazy things. And even his real points are distorted and detracted from by the clumsiness and inappropriateness of some of his rhetoric. But people certainly add their own interpretations to what they hear and read, and for some reason I'm not seeing hatred or bigotry in that quoted section, and some other people are.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Back on the Obama topic:
cnn.com wrote:Controversial minister off Obama's campaign
A Chicago minister who delivered a fiery sermon about Sen. Hillary Clinton having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race because she is white is no longer a part of the Obama campaign.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee, campaign sources told CNN.
In another sermon, Wright had said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself.
Obama denounced some of Wright's sermons on Friday, telling CNN's Anderson Cooper: "These are a series of incendiary statements that I can't object to strongly enough."
Earlier Friday, before the announcement of Wright's departure from the Obama camp, the Illinois senator denounced some of the ministers's sermons, calling them "inflammatory and appalling."
"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama wrote on the liberal Web site Huffingtonpost.com about recently surfaced sermons from Wright -- his longtime pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ.
"I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit," Obama continued. "In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
Obama, during the CNN interview, said, "I just don't think it's necessary to talk about Senator Clinton or anybody in those terms." Watch Obama on CNN respond to sermons »
And, even though he has been a member of Trinity United for the past 20 years, Obama said he had never witnessed Wright making such statements.
"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."
The sermons in question became the subject of scrutiny earlier this week after being highlighted in an ABC News report.
At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is considerably easier than Obama's because of his skin color.
"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '[ see forum posting rules]!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person." Watch Wright berate Clinton from the pulpit »
Wright, who retired from his post earlier this year, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"
Still, Obama defended his 20-year relationship with Wright, saying that the pastor has served him in a spiritual role -- not a political one.
A sermon from Wright shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks is also under scrutiny. In it he said America had brought on the attacks with its own practice of terrorism.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
In his statement Friday, Obama said he had not personally heard the controversial sermons.
"When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama wrote. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."
And in a 2003 sermon, Wright said of America's treatment of African-Americans: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.
But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments.
241
Post by: Ahtman
There were people who dislike David Dukes speech's, so I guess the makes him like MLK to. I see your point, being disliked means you are probably in the right.
You never had to parse MLK's words or say, "What he really meant was..."
StormtrooperX: Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Not off the top of my head, but I know they are called Asians.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Ahtman wrote:There were people who dislike David Dukes speech's, so I guess the makes him like MLK to. I see your point, being disliked means you are probably in the right.
That’s not what I wrote at all. It’s a complete straw man.
Ahtman wrote:You never had to parse MLK's words or say, "What he really meant was..."
How do you know? Were you there? Apparently some people did have a problem with what he said, since he was shot for it.
Ahtman wrote:Mannahnin wrote: Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Not off the top of my head, but I know they are called Asians.
Nice. No numbers. Just toss in a racial stereotype without evidence.
Are you just trolling with this post?
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
@gamefiend - So you dealt with adversity, bettered yourself despite opposition and came out the other end a stronger, more intelligent and apparently better paid. Good for you, honestly. Now, because you're black does that make it more impressive than if a white person did this?
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Mannahnin, if I told you I could give you a free education for whatever you wanted to do and then once you were finished with that you were guaranteed a job doing that would you take it? I have a very hard time believing you would not, yet I grew up with many people who did not even though the opportunity was right there. Now, does this make me a racist?
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Stormtrooper X wrote:@gamefiend - So you dealt with adversity, bettered yourself despite opposition and came out the other end a stronger, more intelligent and apparently better paid. Good for you, honestly. Now, because you're black does that make it more impressive than if a white person did this?
Yes.
The point gamefiend is making (quite clearly, I might add) is that it's harder to be a black male in this country than any other gender/race combination. Having never walked a mile in his shoes, but having cohorts who have, I still recognize the realities of America. And his major solution is the one I support the strongest. Until kids turn 18, they should ALL have the same advantages. Funding for some schools is not equal to others. Those scholarships are supposed to redress the imbalance (like affirmative action, which I dislike, but understand completely), but they don't even begin to.
I was raised upper middle class white in SC, VA, ME, and RI. I had it pretty good. That doesn't make gamefiend better or worse than me, but it does mean he knows what he is talking about better than I do.
All of that said, I think the reverend used poor word choices, and spends too much time laying a groundwork for excuses, only to say they don't matter at the end. That might work for some congregants, but other might see too much emphasis on his issues. I think he overstates his case. But Obama already addressed this, so WHO CARES?
5385
Post by: gamefiend
Stormtrooper X wrote:@gamefiend - So you dealt with adversity, bettered yourself despite opposition and came out the other end a stronger, more intelligent and apparently better paid. Good for you, honestly. Now, because you're black does that make it more impressive than if a white person did this?
nope, and that's completely not the point I was making --it's rather unfortunate that that is your take-away. You explicitly make a point that minorities are more privileged than white america, and that is false. You cite these phantom programs that seem to give minorities everything while the poor, persecuted majority gets nothing. And, like I said before, I call bs on that, unless you point me to that magical bus.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
So because I dealt with all this growing up and I'm white it's all inconsequential? I have no idea what I'm talking about. My childhood was just a dream, a fictitious thing that never happened. I guess I should have just known better and just understood that because I'm a minority here I'm not a minority in the grand scheme of things.
5385
Post by: gamefiend
dienekes96 wrote:
All of that said, I think the reverend used poor word choices, and spends too much time laying a groundwork for excuses, only to say they don't matter at the end. That might work for some congregants, but other might see too much emphasis on his issues. I think he overstates his case. But Obama already addressed this, so WHO CARES?
Yup.
I agree with everything you said in your post, and especially this.
5385
Post by: gamefiend
Stormtrooper X wrote:So because I dealt with all this growing up and I'm white it's all inconsequential? I have no idea what I'm talking about. My childhood was just a dream, a fictitious thing that never happened.
No one here has denied your experiences, but when you start with the anecdotal (your life) and then move to the universal (the rest of America) you've got to expect to run into differing perspectives. Your statements aren't, "Why are the people around me like this?" They are "why are these minorities like this? Why do minorities have it so much better than me?" I can tell from your posts that your experiences have soured you --I don't know you so I can't say to what degree --but what you dealt with isn't all there is.
If, growing up where I did and seeing what I did, I then made the leap to "all white people are evil, racist donkey-caves", might you not have something to say about this? Wouldn't you think I was going a bit wild with my reasoning? Wouldn't you think it was a bit unfair?
Stormtrooper X wrote:
I guess I should have just known better and just understood that because I'm a minority here I'm not a minority in the grand scheme of things.
Don't go feeling sorry for yourself. You're just as free to say what you want as anyone on this forum is to say that he/she thinks you are wrong.
131
Post by: malfred
Ahtman wrote:There were people who dislike David Dukes speech's, so I guess the makes him like MLK to. I see your point, being disliked means you are probably in the right.
You never had to parse MLK's words or say, "What he really meant was..."
StormtrooperX: Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Not off the top of my head, but I know they are called Asians.
Successful minority group Asians usually come from middle class backgrounds and
education and voluntarily migrate to America. Lower income group Asians usually
come from lower income backgrounds and migrate to America to flee dangerous
conditions...okay the middle class ones do, too, but your Cambodian who comes
to America as a laborer will, surprise surprise, have a harder time than the Filipino
nurse.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Mannahnin wrote:Ahtman wrote:There were people who dislike David Dukes speech's, so I guess the makes him like MLK to. I see your point, being disliked means you are probably in the right.
That’s not what I wrote at all. It’s a complete straw man.
You are the one who brought up the argument that being disliked doesn't mean you are wrong, you are the one who compared him to MLK, not I.
Ahtman wrote:Mannahnin wrote: Can you cite any statistical evidence showing that people from any particular minority group have MORE educational or economic success than your average white American?
Not off the top of my head, but I know they are called Asians.
Nice. No numbers. Just toss in a racial stereotype without evidence.
Are you just trolling with this post?
No. Well maybe a little. It's called a joke. I understand your sense of humor resides somewhere up on the ivory tower where you can translate what bigoted preachers really meant to say, but it might not hurt to look for it.
malfred wrote:Successful minority group Asians usually come from middle class backgrounds and
education and voluntarily migrate to America. Lower income group Asians usually
come from lower income backgrounds and migrate to America to flee dangerous
conditions...okay the middle class ones do, too, but your Cambodian who comes
to America as a laborer will, surprise surprise, have a harder time than the Filipino
nurse.
Oh now your just not having any fun.
As far as black men having it the worst, black women would vehemently disagree with that.
This problem isn't really about race issues, it's about what effect has this guy and his more ludicrous beliefs have had an effect on a man who aspires to, and isn't far off from being the President of the United States. I think Obama is smarted then to believe that white people created AIDS to kill black people. Still it begs the question of why keep someone around your campaign that is going to say things like that? Fair or not this may be the thing that does the most harm to his chances. Even for Democrats it's hard to see a guy chanting God Damn the USA and not be upset, then find out he's an advisor to the candidate you like. This is only good for Hillary. The race issue here is just a red herring, like communism.
131
Post by: malfred
Sorry. Model minority is kind of a weird stereotype to inhabit.
5030
Post by: Grignard
I'm never one for jumping on the racial inequality bandwagon, but I have read a little bit about the "model minority" thing as it applies to Asians. When I was going to graduate school out in Denver, which has a large Asian, specifically Korean, population, the Asian student association had a little presentation on that one. Their claim is that while the average household income for Asian families is actually higher than White families nationally ( This part is apparently factual, at least they had data to support that), the average income of individuals is lower than whites ( though higher than blacks and Latinos ). Note that this is not my argument, but their assumption is that many Asians are employed in cooperative family enterprises which sort of dilutes the income of individuals a bit. They did not have data that specifically supported that last part. Now, being a scientist I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, but from my observations it seems that might be the case. I do not see any of that though being evidence for active discrimination on a nationwide level though.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Something has been bugging me about this whole thing. While the Pastor may have had these ideas before, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he let loose with them at the pulpit until recently. Obama stated that he never heard things of the nature before and I tend to believe him. So it begs the question: Why now? You have a flock member that is running a good campaign and you take his knees out with things that can only damage him. I don't get it. Either the pastor was bought off, went over the edge, or thinks the US is so corrupt that he didn't want Obama to be president so sabotaged it. I don't really know what the reasons are, but I find it incredibly odd.
131
Post by: malfred
Ahtman wrote:Something has been bugging me about this whole thing. While the Pastor may have had these ideas before, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he let loose with them at the pulpit until recently. Obama stated that he never heard things of the nature before and I tend to believe him. So it begs the question: Why now? You have a flock member that is running a good campaign and you take his knees out with things that can only damage him. I don't get it. Either the pastor was bought off, went over the edge, or thinks the US is so corrupt that he didn't want Obama to be president so sabotaged it. I don't really know what the reasons are, but I find it incredibly odd.
If I were to consult my Warren Ellis plot devices I'd say he was
bought off by the CIA and determined to not only take out Obama,
but Martyr him in the process...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grignard wrote:Iorek wrote:Grignard wrote:I don't shop at Citgo stations, not that that will make any difference.
It does make a difference. It shows that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and not be a hypocrite, and that's a rare and good thing these days. Lead by example!
(I too refuse to shop at Citgo.)
The only thing is I really don't know how the petroleum industry works. Probably most of the others buy Venezuelan crude. Someone told me that British Petroleum doesn't, but I don't know if that is true. I have a hard time believing they rely totally on North Sea drilling. It is just that from what I understand, Citgo is a nationalized company of the Venezuelan government.
Venezuelan crude is what is called heavy/sour crude. There are only a certain amount of refineries that can actually process the stuff. Citgo has some of thos refineries as do others. But at the end of the day every dollar not spent at Citgo is a dollar that doesn't directly go to Chavez.
221
Post by: Frazzled
malfred wrote:Ahtman wrote:Something has been bugging me about this whole thing. While the Pastor may have had these ideas before, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he let loose with them at the pulpit until recently. Obama stated that he never heard things of the nature before and I tend to believe him. So it begs the question: Why now? You have a flock member that is running a good campaign and you take his knees out with things that can only damage him. I don't get it. Either the pastor was bought off, went over the edge, or thinks the US is so corrupt that he didn't want Obama to be president so sabotaged it. I don't really know what the reasons are, but I find it incredibly odd.
If I were to consult my Warren Ellis plot devices I'd say he was
bought off by the CIA and determined to not only take out Obama,
but Martyr him in the process...
Actually its my understanding the "God Damn America" speech was made shortly after 9/11. So this has been going on for a fair bit of time.
5030
Post by: Grignard
jfrazell wrote:
Venezuelan crude is what is called heavy/sour crude. There are only a certain amount of refineries that can actually process the stuff. Citgo has some of thos refineries as do others. But at the end of the day every dollar not spent at Citgo is a dollar that doesn't directly go to Chavez.
Isnt the United States one of the few places with "sweet" crude? Thats Pennsylvania oil isnt it?
241
Post by: Ahtman
jfrazell wrote:Actually its my understanding the "God Damn America" speech was made shortly after 9/11. So this has been going on for a fair bit of time.
I'm not sure there is really a good time to do that speech, though that wasn't a good time for sure either. I thought I had heard on the news that it was about a month ago that the sermon was given.
Grignard wrote:Isnt the United States one of the few places with "sweet" crude? Thats Pennsylvania oil isnt it?
At one time perhaps, but I think we've gone through just about all our continental oil deposits.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grignard wrote:jfrazell wrote:
Venezuelan crude is what is called heavy/sour crude. There are only a certain amount of refineries that can actually process the stuff. Citgo has some of thos refineries as do others. But at the end of the day every dollar not spent at Citgo is a dollar that doesn't directly go to Chavez.
Isnt the United States one of the few places with "sweet" crude? Thats Pennsylvania oil isnt it?
Light crudes are the easy stuff. They literally have a lighter API and be refined much more easily. Also easier to get out of the ground, all things being equal.
Sweet and light crudes are the stuff you (used) to get out of the US, the Middle East, and fair Alaska. Its Ironic that the heaviest stuff on earth (Canadaian oil sands) is located next to some Alaskan good stuff. Its also ironic that the US has bans on offshore drilling off the Southeast coast, which is being epxloited by the Chinese via Cuba.
The majority of the remaining oils being discovered are the heavy crudes. They require a lot more fun to process economically. Its the great joke that people shout we went to war for oil in Iraq when the US could go south and north and have some of the largest prospective reserves, plus I'll put good Mexican food against anything, anywhere, anytime
Edit: Looks like Team Clinton has reviewed the documents and settled some minor issues before revealing their tax filings
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338294,00.html
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Pretty sure you guys have heard this. If not, here it is. I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and now Sean Hannity cry about this (not that I'm agreeing with them, just listening to the radio) and it's kind of funny.
PHILADELPHIA - "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
I didn't hear it. I did read it. I was disappointed the media forced him to do this, but happy in a way.
As I have said, I'm not in love with Obama, so do not consider this an endorsement. However, that text is a speech no other politician has had the stones to make in decades. He addressed a fundamental problem within the United States cogently, and from multiple angles. Where others fear to tread, he walks (lightly, I admit, but it needs that).
A brilliant president once said:
Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.
Obama is putting concepts in the public domain (for discussion and debate) that others won't. I appreciate that, even as blowhards on both sides will attack him and skew his words.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Glorious speech that actually failed to answer why:
1) he never repudiated Wright previously
2) after now admitting he was there during some of these rants he never left the church
3) why he still supports Wright.
Marvelous bit of sidestepping though, I'll give him that.
Its like being asked why you go to Klan meetings and respond by giving a discertation on the history of race, without answering why you actually go to Klan meetings.
5692
Post by: Fizzywig
wow jfrazell, its amazing you can call a speech glorious without actually reading it, for if you did you would notice
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
the reasoning why he still supports wright while denouncing his comments.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I didn't read it I heard it. Wow Fizzywig, its amazing you can assume I didn't.
Wow, Obama can't abandon a racist, because it would be like abandoning his grandmother? Like abandoning Blacks? Whats going through Obama's head?
His reasoning is total Bullsh%$. The man said what he said. Until recently the church website supported the statements. The guy's a closet David Duke. Sorry I don't want someone who goes to the Church of David Duke Lite for 20 years to be my President.
This "liberation theology" that America is evil fits directly in line with statements from Obama's wife who declared she was proud to be an American only recently.
Face it, the more truth comes out the more he looks like just another Chicago politician with a deep voice and a good speech writer.
161
Post by: syr8766
Since when is Texas a part of Canada?
JF: Look at your flag.
221
Post by: Frazzled
syr8766 wrote:Since when is Texas a part of Canada?
JF: Look at your flag.
OK, since they are in the air I can now tell the truth. We've launched the Confederate Airforce and Girl Scout Troop 777 to take Western Canada. They should be over their targets momentarily. We figure the combination of Tex-Mex and Alberta beef will be unstoppable in the world food arena. Its also so hot here, we're going to build a snow pipeline directly from Calgary to Houston to ameliorate the heat-turning both lands into temperate paradises.
5463
Post by: skavenfreak
Houston huh, What about the hill country!
221
Post by: Frazzled
We tried that but the environmentalists blocked it.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I saw Obama the other day across the Street near a Buca Di Beppo. Yay?
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
Do people think that Obama can connect with blue collar workers?
They seem to be leaning strongly towards Hillary Clinton.
Also all this whining by democrats for Hillary to drop out, its amazing that there are so many states still voting. I'd assume that usually these states are essentially wasted votes in the race for nomination...
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Do people think that Obama can connect with blue collar workers?
They seem to be leaning strongly towards Hillary Clinton.
Also all this whining by democrats for Hillary to drop out, its amazing that there are so many states still voting. I'd assume that usually these states are essentially wasted votes in the race for nomination...
That's part of the reason why so many states a couple years back changed their primaries to earlier in the year, California is a good example of this.
Personally I cannot stand politics. I feel that there are no honest politicians in existence. I believe they are overpaid, and do not see their jobs as a service to their countrymen, but rather ways to support their elitist agendas. Like Jfrazell said (I think it was him) elections for a lot of voters aren't decided because they encompass the appeal of a candidate, but really their stance on a few issues. My family's and my 2nd Amendment rights are what is going to decide who I am voting for, and Hillary couldn't lie her way out of a wet paper bag. Obama is decidedly pro gun-control, as evidenced by his voting record and recent comments, and McCain is a distant third. If Ted Nugent were running I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
I'm not sure if any of that made sense, but I tried!
I've only lived in California all my life, so I have little perspective as to how it is in other states, but being able to protect my loved ones, myself, my property, and others, the way in which I choose should not be up to anyone but me.
I really wish there would be a change of pace this election but it already seems it's about the candidates instead of the issues and their stances on them.
|
|
