Latest on MJJC

US Presidential Election ... [All recent threads merged here]

Re: US Presidential Election

Money In The Bank:
Obama $30 Million... Clinton $3 Million

r-MONEY-large.jpg
 
Re: US Presidential Election

since KOPV remarked on controversial but inspirational associates, i though i'd post this here from the MJ/Celeb thread. it's Minister Farrakhan remarking on Mike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SI5SZNoejw

thanks to daphnieas for sharing.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Thank you Rubba. After all of the hoopla about this pastor I expected something considerably 'worse'. It is easy to see Reverend Sharpton's point. I wonder how the general audience took it.
 
Last edited:
what i tell ya's

wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll
Click to expand...
OBAMA TAKES LEAD IN GALLUP

Down 2 yesterday, up 3 today

Update:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Ed...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination.
​
 
Re: US Presidential Election

arXter said:
since KOPV remarked on controversial but inspirational associates, i though i'd post this here from the MJ/Celeb thread. it's Minister Farrakhan remarking on Mike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SI5SZNoejw

thanks to daphnieas for sharing.
Click to expand...

absolutely remarkable. brings me to tears. that proves that if you want to find hate, you'll see hate..but if you want to find positivity, and love, you'll see it. if it hadn't been for this clip, it would be easy for me to think that Minister Farrakahn is about hate, because of what i heard in the media. it pays to be an MJ fan...cus i guess it takes other MJ fans to help me see what the media won't let me see. thanks for posting.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

vncwilliam said:
that proves that if you want to find hate, you'll see hate..but if you want to find positivity, and love, you'll see it. if it hadn't been for this clip, it would be easy for me to think that Minister Farrakahn is about hate, because of what i heard in the media.
Click to expand...
absolutely, it shows the media's brutal force on the world. i'll go as far as calling many of them psychological terrorists working for governments who are trying to hunt for the "real" terrorists.

Farrakhan's remarks are said with so much clarity, it's quite awesome.

and even Pastor Jeremiah Wright - most of what he says is quite frankly the truth that America can't bear to get its head around.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

Just on the Bill Clinton meeting Jeremiah Wright and you guys shouting "HYPOCRISY":

a) Bill Clinton is not running for President
b) the Clinton's aren't members of the Trinity Church
c) Hillary wasn't the one who outed Obama on his affiliation with Wright, so even if she was also friends with Wright, she wouldn't be a "hypocrite".

3 strikes, you're out.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

RubbaRubba said:
Net worth of the Presidential Candidates - very very interesting http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/256.0/popup/index.php?cl=6782580
Click to expand...
I expected Obama and his wife to be worth more although they certainly aren't middle class. The article I had seen spoke about Michelle leaving a high paid legal job (I think Obama did as well) to work for humanitarian causes. The article mentioned that in spite of that she had a very high salary as board member (or whatever position it was she had) of that agency.

I don't know why you find it very, very interesting though. I don't think there is any earth shattering information there.

Obama and Hillary's campaign contributors are very similiar (corporate, legal, wealthy) with the exception that Obama (in addition to the high dollar contibutors which at least initially contributed by far the most to his campaign) had more small contributors. Supposedly whereas many of Hillary's (and Obama's) high dollar contributors have maxed out in allowable contributions the small donors are stepping in and picking up the slack for Obama.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Bob George said:
Just on the Bill Clinton meeting Jeremiah Wright and you guys shouting "HYPOCRISY":

a) Bill Clinton is not running for President
b) the Clinton's aren't members of the Trinity Church
c) Hillary wasn't the one who outed Obama on his affiliation with Wright, so even if she was also friends with Wright, she wouldn't be a "hypocrite".

3 strikes, you're out.
Click to expand...
I don't find anything hypocritical about it either, but I also don't think that's the point.

The picture conveys that Rev. Wright is not some fringe loony on the edge. He is (or shall I say, was) very highly respected. When Wright was a lance corp., he was on the surgical team for President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

I have not commented on this whole Wright/Trinity thing because I'm just too close to it, being that I have visited Trinity many times over the years and I have close friends who are members of that church and are close personal friends to Rev. Wright.

To say that those snippets are a gross mischaracterization of the man would be an understatement.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

mello1 said:
I don't find anything hypocritical about it either, but I also don't think that's the point.

The picture conveys that Rev. Wright is not some fringe loony on the edge. He is (or shall I say, was) very highly respected. When Wright was a lance corp., he was on the surgical team for President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

I have not commented on this whole Wright/Trinity thing because I'm just too close to it, being that I have visited Trinity many times over the years and I have close friends who are members of that church and are close personal friends to Rev. Wright.

To say that those snippets are a gross mischaracterization of the man would be an understatement.
Click to expand...
It was interesting that a reporters attempt to demonstrate to Reverend Sharpton that the Rev. Wright's remarks were racist showed (to some of us anyway) that Wright was not. He sounded like someone who was not afraid to speak truth and forgot to be politically correct while doing it. That's all. Not speaking about it is not the answer. Then it just all goes underground and festers and grows.

Ministers try to fire up their congregations and words are their tools. If you take anyones words over time and start pulling them out of context you can make them look just about any way you want. The media does it all the time and the American public continues to bite. I am impressed that Obama did not abandon a man he understands to be good for political expediency. To me that is character.

I just wish that the media did not decide to put crappy photos of Hillary's expressions on their sites with captions inplying negative things. I feel sure the media's attempts to manipulate opinion have influenced this primary unjustly, just not to what degree. Of course you have the same thing going on with Obama and the Wright thing now. I am so dang tired of trying to filter out media influence. Just like with Michael. If a lie is told enough times people start to believe it. And then when I try to adjust for it wonder if I am adjusting too far the other way.

Bah!
 
Re: US Presidential Election

mello1 said:
I think that Obama's campaign netted it's 2 millionth contributor as of last night and some blogs are stating that Clinton is really in the red because a large chunk of her campaign funds cannot be spent until the General Elections...
Click to expand...
Ouch. Why is that?
 
Re: US Presidential Election

eternitys_child said:
Ouch. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Campaign finance rules. You max out at 2300 bucks for the primary and 2300 bucks for the general. A lot of Hillary's contributors, especially early on in the campaign season, gave her the max contribution. Probably on the thought that she was going to be the defacto nominee by February 5th.

A candidate cannot spend funds advanced to them for the generals until they are named the nominee. If the candidate does not become the nominee, they must refund all that money to contributors.

Obama's net has resulted from a gigantic pool of contributors giving about 25, 50, 100 or 200 bucks at a time. That means that the Obama campaign can hit up those contributors several times during the primary alone before they hit the 2300 buck ceiling.

And if he is the nominee, the Obama camp can start all over again and hit up those million and a half contributors for even more money, not to exceed 2300 bucks. This is the truly untold story of this whole campaign (and when it's told, it's heavily downplayed). If Bush or McCain had raised this kind of money, that is all that the mainstream media would be talking about, because their point would be that it would be impossible to beat that candidate with those kinds of deep pockets and long contributor list.

My thought is that beyond the headline story of who has the most delegates, votes and state wins, the DNC's real problem is the possiblity of having to lose Obama's VERY LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG campaign contribution list, because that's like liquid gold to a politican or political party. And they would most surely lose it if Hillary garners the nomination. It's one thing if peeps somewhat mend the rips of the party to back her. It's another thing to ask peeps who didn't back her in the first place to put hard earned money down for her general election campaign and she would need all she could get, as well as Obama, to deal with all of the 527 swiftboating - ads, and Bill/Monica/Whitewater/who-really-killed-Vince-Foster fare.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

interesting stuff, thanks mello.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

mello1 said:
Campaign finance rules. You max out at 2300 bucks for the primary and 2300 bucks for the general. A lot of Hillary's contributors, especially early on in the campaign season, gave her the max contribution. Probably on the thought that she was going to be the defacto nominee by February 5th.

A candidate cannot spend funds advanced to them for the generals until they are named the nominee. If the candidate does not become the nominee, they must refund all that money to contributors.

Obama's net has resulted from a gigantic pool of contributors giving about 25, 50, 100 or 200 bucks at a time. That means that the Obama campaign can hit up those contributors several times during the primary alone before they hit the 2300 buck ceiling.

And if he is the nominee, the Obama camp can start all over again and hit up those million and a half contributors for even more money, not to exceed 2300 bucks. This is the truly untold story of this whole campaign (and when it's told, it's heavily downplayed). If Bush or McCain had raised this kind of money, that is all that the mainstream media would be talking about, because their point would be that it would be impossible to beat that candidate with those kinds of deep pockets and long contributor list.

My thought is that beyond the headline story of who has the most delegates, votes and state wins, the DNC's real problem is the possiblity of having to lose Obama's VERY LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG campaign contribution list, because that's like liquid gold to a politican or political party. And they would most surely lose it if Hillary garners the nomination. It's one thing if peeps somewhat mend the rips of the party to back her. It's another thing to ask peeps who didn't back her in the first place to put hard earned money down for her general election campaign and she would need all she could get, as well as Obama, to deal with all of the 527 swiftboating - ads, and Bill/Monica/Whitewater/who-really-killed-Vince-Foster fare.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. I guess that was probably included in the article I had read but I forgot about half carrying over.

It is important in another way. It is important because it shifts some power back to what I would call the average American since their dolklars show up as important to this campaign. To me this is more relevant than the incomes or net worth of the candidates. It is plus if they have at some point been in a position where they truly understood living on the edge financially but I would not say it is necessary. There are plenty of wealthy humanists.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

eternitys_child said:
It was interesting that a reporters attempt to demonstrate to Reverend Sharpton that the Rev. Wright's remarks were racist showed (to some of us anyway) that Wright was not. He sounded like someone who was not afraid to speak truth and forgot to be politically correct while doing it. That's all. Not speaking about it is not the answer. Then it just all goes underground and festers and grows.

Ministers try to fire up their congregations and words are their tools. If you take anyones words over time and start pulling them out of context you can make them look just about any way you want. The media does it all the time and the American public continues to bite. I am impressed that Obama did not abandon a man he understands to be good for political expediency. To me that is character.

I just wish that the media did not decide to put crappy photos of Hillary's expressions on their sites with captions inplying negative things. I feel sure the media's attempts to manipulate opinion have influenced this primary unjustly, just not to what degree. Of course you have the same thing going on with Obama and the Wright thing now. I am so dang tired of trying to filter out media influence. Just like with Michael. If a lie is told enough times people start to believe it. And then when I try to adjust for it wonder if I am adjusting too far the other way.

Bah!
Click to expand...
The 'GD America' statement was just going too far, even Trinity members have said so, even in full context of his sermon. But I do cringe with the characterization of this man being some loony, like I do when they do that to MJ, when, knowing what we all know as people who are interested in MJ enough to keep up with him and know that it's just not true.

The MSM is invested in their ratings. It was clear to all who took the time to watch Obama's speech that they 'got' the whole thing, but if you listen to the MSM, one would get the impression that he had not said anything at all.

Also this op piece by Glenn Greenwald summed up the whole sorry state of racial politics in America for me:

One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds today linked to what he called "EASTER THOUGHTS" from one of his favorite right-wing blogs gers, his namesake, "Instapunk." That Easter post has a large picture of a crucified Christ along with a lovely religious poem.



Immediately beneath that righteous celebration of Easter is a somewhat less charitable post purporting to take up Barack Obama's invitation to speak about race. After listing a few black entertainers and sports figures he says he likes, here are some of the thoughts Instapunk offers on race:
On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. . . . ​

Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE n!iggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it. Which would be fine. Except that black people are not a community but a political party. They can squabble with each other in caucus but they absolutely refuse to speak the truth in public. And this is the single biggest obstacle to healing the racial divide in this country. ​


I'm not proposing the generalized use of the term, just trying to be clear for once, in the wake of Obama's call for us to have a dialogue about race. However much they may scream and protest, black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are n!iggers: ​


- Jeremiah Wright ​

- O.J. Simpson ​

- Marion Barry ​

- Alan Iverson ​

- William Jefferson ​

- Louis Farrakhan ​

- Mike Tyson . . . ​


You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone.​
This is just a slightly more explicit version of what one hears on so much right-wing talk radio, beginning with conservative hero Rush Limbaugh. Why is there so much hatred and extremism in black churches? Let's talk more and more about all the racism and radicalism among isolated black people and ignore the endless bile that has long spewed forth from the far more powerful appendages of the right-wing noise-machine, exemplified by Instapunk's Easter meditation on race.



While the dominant political faction in the United States built itself and continues to feed and nourish itself with this sort of endless exploitation of racial resentments and grievances -- and while it openly embraces far more powerful religious fanatics who espouse ideas at least as radical and repugnant as anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said -- let's spend the next eight months talking about the controversial comments of a single, comparatively powerless black preacher and have our presidential election decided by that.


UPDATE: In comments, DrEyeBall makes a good and important point:
Don't be fooled into thinking that this applies only to African-Americans. The sense of threatened tribalism is at the root of movement conservatism, and always has been. ​



This is why it was so easy to sell most of white America on the Iraq war. Polls showed that 2/3 thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or at least close ties to AlQ. . . . ​


Take almost any one of their "thoughtful" screeds about Islam and do a global search/replace from "Islam" to "niggers" and the text becomes instantly recognizable. This racist energy had for a long time been at least partly directed towards "the Communists" but now that it isn't it is pretty much clear that Islam is now the designated n!gger.​
There is no better phrase to describe the animating feature of the modern Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox News conservative faction than "threatened tribalism." The belief that they are good and pure, yet subjected to unprecedented systematic unfairness and threatened by some lurking Evil Other against whom war must be waged (the Muslim, the Immigrant, the Terrorist, the Communist, the Liberal, the Welfare Queen) is the centerpiece of their ugly worldview.



The sentiments expressed here by Instapunk are now most commonly expressed towards the New Enemy -- the Muslim -- but the Wright episode is a nice reminder of how seamlessly it gets directed towards a whole host of other threatening, bad groups. Hence the blithe application of the term "sleeper cells" to black Americans. That's what coalesces them and justifies everything. What matters is that there be some scary, malicious group about to harm them and America. The identity of the particular scary group at any given moment is really secondary. (emphasis mine)


UPDATE II: Instapunk's far-from-uncommon thoughts on race illustrate another significant point. What explains the media's Obama/Wright fixation while virtually ignoring McCain's embrace of people like Rod Parsley and John Hagee is the assumption that the controversial behavior of any one black person is easily attributed to black people generally, while white political leaders aren't held accountable for the views of others solely by virtue of shared race. That dynamic is what explains this (emphasis mine) -- Tim Russert interviewing Barack Obama, January 22, 2006:
MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk a little bit about the language people are using in the politics now of 2006, and I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that? ​



MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Belafonte went to Venezuela, as you well know, some time ago and met with the Hugo Chavez, leader of that country, and said some things that obviously were noted in this country and around the world. Let's listen, and come back and talk about it. . . . Is it appropriate to call the President of the United States "the greatest terrorist in the world"?​

Barack Obama has nothing to do with Harry Belafonte and yet, out of the blue, Tim Russert demanded that he opine on Belafonte's statements -- just as Russert demanded that Obama renounce Louis Farrakhan's. Here, to my knowledge, is the only other time Russert ever asked anyone about the statements of Harry Belafonte -- Tim Russert interviewing Colin Powell, May 4, 2003:
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned criticism of Castro. In fact, some artists and writers from the United States of America, led by Harry Belafonte, said that the United States has been guilty of harassment of Cuba, and this is a pretext for invasion.​
By stark contrast, there is never any assumption that John McCain shares the radical and vehemently "anti-American" views of his "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley or John Hagee, whose endorsements he sought and with whom he has shared a stage and lavishly praised. What accounts for that extreme disparity in media treatment? (That Obama has a closer relationship to Wright than McCain does with Parsley/Hagee is a separate issue, for the reason explained in the first paragraph here). Instapunk's observations shed significant light on the reasons for that disparity.


UPDATE III: As Zack points out in comments, here's what the other right-wing "Insta" blogger -- Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds -- said about Jeremiah Wright a couple of weeks ago after citing an article which mentioned that Oprah Winfrey was also a member of Trinity Church:
That's from a 2007 Chicago Tribune piece via Hot Air. This kind of makes me see Oprah a bit differently, too. "Not many people would associate Oprah's easygoing nature and warm, welcoming appeal with the kind of oratory provided by Wright." As with Mitt Romney on guns, I'm starting to think that they haven't been entirely straight with us.​
Indeed. It's only a matter of time before even the most seemingly well-intentioned black people get exposed as the white-hating extremists that they are. Even Oprah. Or, as Instapundit's long-time political comrade, Instapunk, put it on Friday: "We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us."
(emphasis mine)

UPDATE IV: Just two weeks ago, Instapundit (which is, revealingly enough, one of Karl Rove's favorite blogs) promoted and praised a separate post on race by Instapunk, which proclaimed that (h/t Zack):
  • Barack Obama "is none of us";
  • "in his heart of hearts Obama understands nothing and no one, because he has never belonged anywhere or truly participated in anything";
  • "It's Michelle Obama who hates America";
  • it's feminists who have "done more to destroy the black family and promote the epidemic of children born out of wedlock than any conspiracy Jeremiah Wright could ever dream up"; and,
  • "Even though Obama is not and never was an African-American, he has always been black enough to benefit from the superannuated slave culture that forgives every corruption and hypocrisy in those who have any claim on being black."
Reynolds is promoting ugly bile of this sort for one simple reason -- because, as always, exploiting racial resentments is one of the principal tribalistic weapons on which the Right intends to rely in order to win the election. (emphasis mine) As one blogger just wrote via email:
What I don't understand is why Glenn R. continues to visit and link to a blog where such racist sentiments are permitted to be posted. He must be aware that InstaPunk is a blog that permits contributors to spout venomous racial hatred. Why doesn't he find another blog to visit? I mean, if it were me, I would not keep up an association with a blog that thinks it's okay to let a contributor be so hateful. Why doesn't he disavow this guy?​
As Reynolds himself wrote the other day about Obama: "Obama is giving us a 'national conversation on race,' but mostly by letting a lot of white people realize just what circulates, unremarked, in the black community." I believe that's similar to the way that the blogs and posts Instapundit promotes "let[] a lot of people realize just what circulates, unremarked, in the right-wing sewers."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/race/index.html
Click to expand...


And if we were being honest with one another, we all would have to admit that this is what lies beneath the surface -- whether some would out and out say so in the most blunt in terms as this rightwing blogger did, or whether it exists in the subconsicous mind of the Tim Russert - types who don't even realize it...
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

eternitys_child said:
Ah yes. I guess that was probably included in the article I had read but I forgot about half carrying over.

It is important in another way. It is important because it shifts some power back to what I would call the average American since their dolklars show up as important to this campaign. To me this is more relevant than the incomes or net worth of the candidates. It is plus if they have at some point been in a position where they truly understood living on the edge financially but I would not say it is necessary. There are plenty of wealthy humanists.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. That too, and I should have included it because it takes power AWAY from the MSM, because their parent companies are the very corporations who lobby U.S. politicans for legislation that is most favorable to them, such as the ridiculous provisions in the Federal Communications Act that allows corporations to monopolize media markets, thus thrwarting competition. This is the number one reason why news centers that have been turned into profit centers of 'infotainment', and not news that the people can trust or use.

Certainly a far cry from being 'fair and balanced'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Re: US Presidential Election

mello1 said:
The 'GD America' statement was just going too far, even Trinity members have said so, even in full context of his sermon. But I do cringe with the characterization of this man being some loony, like I do when they do that to MJ, when, knowing what we all know as people who are interested in MJ enough to keep up with him and know that it's just not true.

The MSM is invested in their ratings. It was clear to all who took the time to watch Obama's speech that they 'got' the whole thing, but if you listen to the MSM, one would get the impression that he had not said anything at all.

Also this op piece by Glenn Greenwald summed up the whole sorry state of racial politics in America for me:




And if we were being honest with one another, we all would have to admit that this is what lies beneath the surface -- whether some would out and out say so in the most blunt in terms as this rightwing blogger did, or whether it exists in the subconsicous mind of the Tim Russert - types who don't even realize it...
Click to expand...
I see your point about the GD America statement, especially since it was said in a church. I am an agnostic so that is why it really didn't jump out at me. UUC is a liberal church but still creedal and Christian based so a statement like that would have been inappropriate. I certainly understate his rage at our government however and working with the poor as we have heard he does he would have due reason to be frustrated.

I had a hard time deciding if I thought Obama's speech was in any way comparable to Reynold's linking to the right wing blog (although I know that is not your main point Mello) as Greenwald stated in his last paragraph.

I guess I do, in the sense it acknowledges it and brings it out in the open where nonradicals can enter the discussion. People who are afraid and/or feel deficient or powerless IMO are the ones most likely to make these kinds of statements or dwell on these types of thoughts. Because they are afraid or feel powerless they will make them where they feel they are safe, where they believe they will not be challenged. It makes them feel strong to be able to put someone down but they are actually afraid. In this case right wing bloggers converse on a right wing blog or an alientated black person with a group of blacks he or she feels will relate. The degree to which people who disagree or have opposing input do not speak out makes the opposings sides feel bolder.* Isolated groups speaking amongst themselves does nothing to solve the problems, even when it is done with good intent. It is only when you can get the dialogue started between the two groups that you can begin to heal society and solve the problems.

As I recently heard someone at a Common Ground conference comment recently, "I am the education."

*We do not at this point know if Obama was present for the sermon in question or if he spoke to the reverend about it but we do know he spoke out in the public about it rather than bury it.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

eternitys_child said:
I see your point about the GD America statement, especially since it was said in a church. I am an agnostic so that is why it really didn't jump out at me. UUC is a liberal church but still creedal and Christian based so a statement like that would have been inappropriate. I certainly understate his rage at our government however and working with the poor as we have heard he does he would have due reason to be frustrated.

I had a hard time deciding if I thought Obama's speech was in any way comparable to Reynold's linking to the right wing blog (although I know that is not your main point Mello) as Greenwald stated in his last paragraph.

I guess I do, in the sense it acknowledges it and brings it out in the open where nonradicals can enter the discussion. People who are afraid and/or feel deficient or powerless IMO are the ones most likely to make these kinds of statements or dwell on these types of thoughts. Because they are afraid or feel powerless they will make them where they feel they are safe, where they believe they will not be challenged. It makes them feel strong to be able to put someone down but they are actually afraid. In this case right wing bloggers converse on a right wing blog or an alientated black person with a group of blacks he or she feels will relate. The degree to which people who disagree or have opposing input do not speak out makes the opposings sides feel bolder.* Isolated groups speaking amongst themselves does nothing to solve the problems, even when it is done with good intent. It is only when you can get the dialogue started between the two groups that you can begin to heal society and solve the problems.

As I recently heard someone at a Common Ground conference comment recently, "I am the education."

*We do not at this point know if Obama was present for the sermon in question or if he spoke to the reverend about it but we do know he spoke out in the public about it rather than bury it.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that he wasn't there.

I posted that blog because it in it, it displays the real undercurrent on the discussion of race in America. I think Greenwald used the word 'tribalism'. And for that blogger, that is 'his' truth, although he would be hard pressed to qualify his sweeping statements that all black folk acted in the way he described. It's certainly delusional to think of black folk as a 'fifth column' (translation for those wondering: terrorists lying in wait to exude violence in a racial jihad sort of way) because of one black man's angry rant that has been generally mischaracterized by a main stream media with it's own agenda...
 
Re: US Presidential Election

mello1 said:
It is my understanding that he wasn't there.

I posted that blog because it in it, it displays the real undercurrent on the discussion of race in America. I think Greenwald used the word 'tribalism'. And for that blogger, that is 'his' truth, although he would be hard pressed to qualify his sweeping statements that all black folk acted in the way he described. It's certainly delusional to think of black folk as a 'fifth column' (translation for those wondering: terrorists lying in wait to exude violence in a racial jihad sort of way) because of one black man's angry rant that has been generally mischaracterized by a main stream media with it's own agenda...
Click to expand...
I understood why you posted it. It was very hard to follow the 'article' because I was not familiar with the blog or either of the journalists but I did understand what you were saying and I do agree. I guess tribalism is a good word that I should have picked up and used. It does begin in people banding together in fear of 'the others' or of their own abilty to 'keep themselves safe' whether physically or from ideas or circumstances they are not sure of.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Is it not a very bad sign for a society, when it needs the fear of a outside enemy to hold them together? What would happen to a society like that, if no enemy existed?
 
Re: US Presidential Election

movingcoolcat said:
Is it not a very bad sign for a society, when it needs the fear of a outside enemy to hold them together? What would happen to a society like that, if no enemy existed?
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, the PTB who constantly pushes an enemy agenda would no longer be the PTB...
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Mello; I enjoy reading this thread- thanks for all the info!
I stand on the outside, looking in and try to understand. I visited NY resently, my first time in the US. And even if I realy, truly enjoyed it the feeling I got there was very different from traveling in Europe or in Asia. In the short time i was there, I saw more cops then I normaly would in a year.It sort of made me feel safe, but at the same time i thought- they must be there for a reason, if you understand what I mean?Like there was something to be afraid of?
And that is one of the things that springs to mind when I think about the US, and the election- a sort of paranoia. A need for someone to be the ultimate enemy. Not a feeling of finding a way to solv the problems, but a need to find the one to blame.
For me the main symbol of what wrong is the fact that people do not have a desent health care. Its basic, its something that a society just should have. Not something that even should be up for discussion. Not having it is bad for economy, as far to many people will not be able to fix basic health problems and go back to work when cured.
To me and election should be less a matter of person, and more about actual politics.
For me, a politician could be gay, white, black, female, into serious bed jumping with prostitutes- as long as he/ she does what i elected him to do; make society work, make relationships with other nations peaceful and functioning, and make shore my rights when it comes to health care, education and safety is held to a satisfying standard.

Maybe the ultimate question for a leader would be; do you have the guts to make unpopular desicions when needed, because its for the common good. People may not thank you until after you 6 feet under, but the result will be good, and you would have made shore that any hairy camels you ate during the time as leader, would be worth it.

No politician will ever be without flaws, and a person you would not even like in person could still be the one who actually got the job done.

Personally I think Hillary would be a very good canditate for the job. She has had her fair share of falling flat on her face, she has been humiliated, and that in front of the whole world - and she took it standing, and have experienced the good, the bad and the truly ugly. She can do a good "horse- traid" when needed, but in the end, when it comes down to it she is fighting for a cause. Its something in her that makes her want to do this, despite everything, and it may very well be just that fight for "common good".

I realy like Obama. But I am afraid that when it comes down to it- if he becomes the candidate, the world will see the US shoosing another white, old republican male. Due to all that is said about the fear that lies deep within the society. They will shoose him, not because he is the best candidate, but because their emotion, their fear will make the desicion for them.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

For me, a politician could be gay, white, black, female, into serious bed jumping with prostitutes- as long as he/ she does what i elected him to do; make society work, make relationships with other nations peaceful and functioning, and make shore my rights when it comes to health care, education and safety is held to a satisfying standard.
Click to expand...
Oh Movingcoolcat, we are SO not at this point yet. We just had the Governor of New York resign because he was having an affair with high priced prostitutes. The new Governor is being chastised over his affairs that he admitted to (somewhat). He's only been in office for a week. I do think that we are a bit hypocritical about some of this because we hold these people up to a higher moral standard than some of us exercise ourselves.

You are point on with your observations...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top