I think you all need to read up on Black Liberation Theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
Full Version: Presidential Caucus / Primary Results
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Who laid blame on Clinton for Ferraro? I just recall a bunch of people saying, "what a dumb woman." Same thing applies here.
Rose is right, though, in that an employee of the campaign is being payed to not say say stupid stuff that can hurt the campaign. Personal associates are not. That does draw score huge points in the "which person-associated-with-a-candidate did the stupider thing" game.
Rose is right, though, in that an employee of the campaign is being payed to not say say stupid stuff that can hurt the campaign. Personal associates are not. That does draw score huge points in the "which person-associated-with-a-candidate did the stupider thing" game.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 18 2008, 07:05 PM) 
I think you all need to read up on Black Liberation Theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
Just because you assign a series of thoughts a label doesn't make them legitimate. Not all ideologies are valid.
Call it whatever you want, but saying the United States caused 9/11, that the US Government introduced HIV to kill off blacks, and telling your congregation to "G-d damn America" is unacceptable.
And while I don't believe that Obama should be equated with these remarks, the question is still there; How much of this craziness does Obama, a twenty year vet of Wright's congregation, really believe?
He did a fantastic job distancing himself from the Reverend, but I consider the concerns about "how much of this does Obama actually by into" real.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ Mar 18 2008, 07:09 PM)
Who laid blame on Clinton for Ferraro? I just recall a bunch of people saying, "what a dumb woman." Same thing applies here.
Rose is right, though, in that an employee of the campaign is being payed to not say say stupid stuff that can hurt the campaign. Personal associates are not. That does draw score huge points in the "which person-associated-with-a-candidate did the stupider thing" game.
Rose is right, though, in that an employee of the campaign is being payed to not say say stupid stuff that can hurt the campaign. Personal associates are not. That does draw score huge points in the "which person-associated-with-a-candidate did the stupider thing" game.
And I can claim that Obama came out the worst. The man who has served as his spiritual leader for twenty years just claimed that the US government caused 9/11, introduced HIV to kill off blacks, and told his congregation to pray for G-d "damning" America.
One can't help but wonder how much of this is believed by Obama; he was in the man's congregation for twenty years. He considers the man family.
So I would say Obama loses the which person-associated-with-a-candidate did the stupider thing" game.
Ferraro was just working on Clinton's campaign, Wright served as Obama's spiritual adviser for two decades and was by all accounts pretty much a member of the Illinois senator's family.
As for Ferraro, I heard stuff, on this board and other places, from "Clinton should distance herself from this woman" to "the Clinton campaign is trying to make this election about race!"
The Obama people jumped on the Ferraro incident, they would be idiotic not to. What's amusing though, is that when the same thing happens to their candidate they claim it isn't the same thing by claiming Wright's statements are justifiable, by pointing out technicalities, etc....
They acted like sharks near blood when the Clinton camp was bleeding, but they cry foul when the Clinton team reacts in the same manner to an Obama wound. Why? Petty politics, I would guess.
Maybe this issue affecting Obama, the same issue that affected Clinton, proves that Obama is just a politician, that he isn't this savour that's above the political minefield.
Maybe after months of painting (justifiably) the Clinton team as a group of mud-slingers and Obama as an honourable man above petty name calling Obama supporters are having a hard time grasping the fact that their man is just as guilty of making poor friends as any other public figure is.
I'm not blaming or condemning Obama due to the Reverend's remarks. Nor did I condemn Clinton for Ferraro's remarks. I'm just not buying the Obama side's "this isn't the same thing!" response. It is. An associate of Clinton f*cked up. An associate of Obama f*cked up.
Your candidate did a better job distancing himself from the wayward associate then Clinton did. You did, in the end, win.
Just admit that Obama's campaign isn't the haven on honest, gentlemanly politics we all thought it once was. Just admit, that like Clinton, and every other political figure out there, Obama has made a few bad choices concerning his friends. That's all I'm asking. That the Obama side admit that they got just as blindsided as the Clinton side was.
FTR, I have no dog in this race. I think both candidates have good ideas. I think Clinton forcing everyone into her health plan is a mistake; people should have the option to opt out. Obama just seems to good to be true. And I feel this incident hilighted that; despite the hype, Obama's just as prone as every other politician when it comes to the dangers of the political minefield.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ Mar 18 2008, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 18 2008, 07:05 PM)
I think you all need to read up on Black Liberation Theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
Just because you assign a series of thoughts a label doesn't make them legitimate. Not all ideologies are valid.
Call it whatever you want, but saying the United States caused 9/11, that the US Government introduced HIV to kill off blacks, and telling your congregation to "G-d damn America" is unacceptable.
And while I don't believe that Obama should be equated with these remarks, the question is still there; How much of this craziness does Obama, a twenty year vet of Wright's congregation, really believe?
He did a fantastic job distancing himself from the Reverend, but I consider the concerns about "how much of this does Obama actually by into" real.
I'm just saying that it would do all of us well to learn a little more about each other.
To quote from Obama's speech:
QUOTE
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.
You don't have to agree with what Wright was saying, but I do think that we should at least try to understand where people like him are coming from.
And for the record, "God damn America" is, as Wright himself said in that context, a Biblical idea -- that God only blesses a nation inasmuch as it follows his priorities -- justice for the oppressed, care for orphans and widows, helping the poor, etc. If it should neglect these priorities, it will find itself under his condemnation. Which is what "damn" means. It's definitely harsh language, but no harsher than the language the Bible itself uses to describe God's feelings towards nations that abandon him.
Again, you don't have to agree with any of that. But this ->
is not going to move anyone forward. And for the record, that is Obama's point as well.
I understand where Rev. Wright is coming from, well as much as a white Jewish Canadian can. I mean I can read about your experience and study your beliefs, and you can do the same regarding myself, but will we ever truly understand the experiences that have the other who he is?
So I understand where Wright is coming from as much as I can, being so outside of his own demographic. I still don't think his words are justifiable, even when taken into account of the history of blacks in the United States and the specific era that Wright came of age in.
I understand wanting to promote ethnic identity. I did some research, and I came across a quote Rev. Wright said that I must say I agreed with. He said something along the lines that simply promoting ethic identity does not mean separation or the advocating of hatred toward the dominant group. I agree with that.
I just think Rev. Wright crossed a line from simply wanting to promote his community's identity to outright negativity (I wouldn't call it hate speech, but it's on the line).
I understand where he's coming from as a black man who came of age in the late 50's/early 60's (as much as I'm able to), but I just don't see it as justifiable.
And to that extent, I agree with Mr. Obama. If we all understand where we're all coming from, we can work toward accepting everyone.
So I understand where Wright is coming from as much as I can, being so outside of his own demographic. I still don't think his words are justifiable, even when taken into account of the history of blacks in the United States and the specific era that Wright came of age in.
I understand wanting to promote ethnic identity. I did some research, and I came across a quote Rev. Wright said that I must say I agreed with. He said something along the lines that simply promoting ethic identity does not mean separation or the advocating of hatred toward the dominant group. I agree with that.
I just think Rev. Wright crossed a line from simply wanting to promote his community's identity to outright negativity (I wouldn't call it hate speech, but it's on the line).
I understand where he's coming from as a black man who came of age in the late 50's/early 60's (as much as I'm able to), but I just don't see it as justifiable.
And to that extent, I agree with Mr. Obama. If we all understand where we're all coming from, we can work toward accepting everyone.
Think we'd all do well to think about the kinda stuff Obama's talking about, not just in our party or this particular election but this point in history and in contemplating the future we're creating. On the other hand, the best message will fail if the audience doesn't listen.
Is it bad that I agree with most of what the Reverend was saying?
Given that a lot of it goes against documented fact, YES.
Claiming that U.S. foreign policy was a cause of 9/11 isn't all that controversial IMO... it's just not the kind of thing people like to think about. Americans historically aren't very good at self-examination.
I think it's foolish to think that it had NO impact on 9.11.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 19 2008, 07:57 AM)
Claiming that U.S. foreign policy was a cause of 9/11 isn't all that controversial IMO... it's just not the kind of thing people like to think about. Americans historically aren't very good at self-examination.
I was thinking more along the line of the CIA giving black people aids thing.
And while that is a cause, it isn't the cause, so to speak.
I have no opinion on the AIDS thing since I don't know what he said about it (I mean, aside from what you just said).
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 19 2008, 07:13 AM)
Is it bad that I agree with most of what the Reverend was saying?
US foreign policy causing 9/11 is a valid statement, but it in no way excuses the atrocities that were the 9/11 attacks. Whether Rev. Wright was simply implying US policy resulted in the attacks, or if he was using US policy to justify the attacks are two different things. I think when people heard/read the quote in question they thought of the latter. Either way the Reverend should have had enough common sense to distinguish between the two.
As for the US government giving black people HIV? If you honestly believe that, then you probably shouldn't be voting.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 19 2008, 09:09 AM)
I have no opinion on the AIDS thing since I don't know what he said about it (I mean, aside from what you just said).
Here's the quote....
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
He's never used Google to search for the history of aids, I take it.
The first reported case of aids was all the way back in the '50s. It came from a bloody monkey bite.
The first reported case of aids was all the way back in the '50s. It came from a bloody monkey bite.
I think when sertile said "most", the AIDS thing was the part he was excluding.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ Mar 19 2008, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 19 2008, 07:13 AM)
Is it bad that I agree with most of what the Reverend was saying?
US foreign policy causing 9/11 is a valid statement, but it in no way excuses the atrocities that were the 9/11 attacks. Whether Rev. Wright was simply implying US policy resulted in the attacks, or if he was using US policy to justify the attacks are two different things. I think when people heard/read the quote in question they thought of the latter. Either way the Reverend should have had enough common sense to distinguish between the two.
I don't think ANYONE in the US would want to "justify" the attacks. When someone says that 9/11 is an example of the "chickens coming home to roost," that is a specific reference to Malcolm X, who (controversially) used the same expression in describing JFK's assassination. The idea being that you reap what you sow (which is a Biblical concept), and that a lack of justice done in your country will result in injustice being visited upon you in return. Liberation theology focuses on the plight of the oppressed (and God's bias toward them), and as such holds no great loyalty to any government that has systematically crushed its own people under its foot. In such a view, God's judgment against such governments is inevitable and to be expected. So to state that the US caused 9/11 is merely to echo the same theme, that governments that do evil should not be surprised when evil is visited upon them in turn.
Now, that is a theology, not a foreign policy critique, and as such it speaks in broad terms that are not necessarily indicative of the complex realities of the situation. But the basic idea behind it is a powerful one, to people looking for an explanation. (I remember once speaking with an African-American professor who told me that one reason the Nation of Islam had grown as it did in America is because their claim that "the white man is the devil" actually answered a lot of questions.)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 19 2008, 09:23 AM)
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ Mar 19 2008, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 19 2008, 07:13 AM)
Is it bad that I agree with most of what the Reverend was saying?
US foreign policy causing 9/11 is a valid statement, but it in no way excuses the atrocities that were the 9/11 attacks. Whether Rev. Wright was simply implying US policy resulted in the attacks, or if he was using US policy to justify the attacks are two different things. I think when people heard/read the quote in question they thought of the latter. Either way the Reverend should have had enough common sense to distinguish between the two.
I don't think ANYONE in the US would want to "justify" the attacks. When someone says that 9/11 is an example of the "chickens coming home to roost," that is a specific reference to Malcolm X, who (controversially) used the same expression in describing JFK's assassination. The idea being that you reap what you sow (which is a Biblical concept), and that a lack of justice done in your country will result in injustice being visited upon you in return. Liberation theology focuses on the plight of the oppressed (and God's bias toward them), and as such holds no great loyalty to any government that has systematically crushed its own people under its foot. In such a view, God's judgment against such governments is inevitable and to be expected. So to state that the US caused 9/11 is merely to echo the same theme, that governments that do evil should not be surprised when evil is visited upon them in turn.
Now, that is a theology, not a foreign policy critique, and as such it speaks in broad terms that are not necessarily indicative of the complex realities of the situation. But the basic idea behind it is a powerful one, to people looking for an explanation. (I remember once speaking with an African-American professor who told me that one reason the Nation of Islam had grown as it did in America is because their claim that "the white man is the devil" actually answered a lot of questions.)
I agree with most, if not all, of this.
What you've posted is a theological critic of why US foreign policy resulted in 9/11.
That's not the issue though. To many, even if the Reverend did not intended it, he came off saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified because of US foreign policy. The two are vastly different concepts.
Was US foreign policy partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Yes.
Were the 9/11 attacks justified because of US foreign policy? No.
The Reverend should have distinguished the two, and he did not.
QUOTE (SkyClonus)
I think when sertile said "most", the AIDS thing was the part he was excluding.
That depends. I would hope he didn't buy into the HIV/AIDS conspiracy theory. From what I know of him he seems like an intelligent guy so it would be a shame if he bought into that load of crap.
As for the 9/11 stuff, well what was sertile agreeing with? That US foreign policy is partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or that the attacks were justified because of US foreign policy?
When you have statements this outrages, you can't simply say "I agree with most of what he/she said" and expect to be above criticism. What parts of these statements did sertile agree with?
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 19 2008, 07:19 AM)
I think when sertile said "most", the AIDS thing was the part he was excluding.
Bingo. I was thinking more of the the "white chicks have it easier than black dudes" and "US partially responsible for 911" bits, which don't seem all that controversial to me. I never even heard the part about AIDS until last night, which is just silly. Everyone knows the government invented AIDS to wipe out homosexuals...
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 19 2008, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 19 2008, 07:19 AM)
I think when sertile said "most", the AIDS thing was the part he was excluding.
Bingo. I was thinking more of the the "white chicks have it easier than black dudes" and "US partially responsible for 911" bits, which don't seem all that controversial to me. I never even heard the part about AIDS until last night, which is just silly. Everyone knows the government invented AIDS to wipe out homosexuals...
I'd have a good laugh at that last line, but somewhere in the US, a fucking moron believes that.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ Mar 19 2008, 09:54 AM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 19 2008, 09:23 AM)
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ Mar 19 2008, 09:11 AM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 19 2008, 07:13 AM)
Is it bad that I agree with most of what the Reverend was saying?
US foreign policy causing 9/11 is a valid statement, but it in no way excuses the atrocities that were the 9/11 attacks. Whether Rev. Wright was simply implying US policy resulted in the attacks, or if he was using US policy to justify the attacks are two different things. I think when people heard/read the quote in question they thought of the latter. Either way the Reverend should have had enough common sense to distinguish between the two.
I don't think ANYONE in the US would want to "justify" the attacks. When someone says that 9/11 is an example of the "chickens coming home to roost," that is a specific reference to Malcolm X, who (controversially) used the same expression in describing JFK's assassination. The idea being that you reap what you sow (which is a Biblical concept), and that a lack of justice done in your country will result in injustice being visited upon you in return. Liberation theology focuses on the plight of the oppressed (and God's bias toward them), and as such holds no great loyalty to any government that has systematically crushed its own people under its foot. In such a view, God's judgment against such governments is inevitable and to be expected. So to state that the US caused 9/11 is merely to echo the same theme, that governments that do evil should not be surprised when evil is visited upon them in turn.
Now, that is a theology, not a foreign policy critique, and as such it speaks in broad terms that are not necessarily indicative of the complex realities of the situation. But the basic idea behind it is a powerful one, to people looking for an explanation. (I remember once speaking with an African-American professor who told me that one reason the Nation of Islam had grown as it did in America is because their claim that "the white man is the devil" actually answered a lot of questions.)
I agree with most, if not all, of this.
What you've posted is a theological critic of why US foreign policy resulted in 9/11.
That's not the issue though. To many, even if the Reverend did not intended it, he came off saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified because of US foreign policy. The two are vastly different concepts.
He's a pastor. I think to expect anything other than a theological critique of US policy is silly.
Yeah, I gotta agree with that. >.>
FWIW, this guy seems to be the semi-crazy uncle of Obama's family. He loves the man with all his heart, but he'll be the first one to say "WTF" to him personally, I'd imagine.
>.>
FWIW, this guy seems to be the semi-crazy uncle of Obama's family. He loves the man with all his heart, but he'll be the first one to say "WTF" to him personally, I'd imagine.
>.>
who knew
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 19 2008, 11:25 AM)
"Mike Huckabee showed a surprising amount of understanding and intelligence on the Reverend Wright issue today on Morning Joe."
You mean, he ain't one uh dem ig'nant suh-thuh-nuhs that walks around without shoes on, listenin' to Hank Williams, drinkin' Pabst Blue Ribbon, watchin' NASCAR, and marry-in' his sister?? Whodathunk?
Then again, this WAS written by someone at dailykos...
QUOTE (Stormtrooper53 @ Mar 19 2008, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 19 2008, 11:25 AM)
"Mike Huckabee showed a surprising amount of understanding and intelligence on the Reverend Wright issue today on Morning Joe."
You mean, he ain't one uh dem ig'nant suh-thuh-nuhs that walks around without shoes on, listenin' to Hank Williams, drinkin' Pabst Blue Ribbon, watchin' NASCAR, and marry-in' his sister?? Whodathunk?
Then again, this WAS written by someone at dailykos...
You misunderstand: "Mike Huckabee showed a surprising amount of understanding and intelligence on the Reverend Wright issue for an ignorant southerner that walks around without shoes on, listening to Hank Williams, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, watching NASCAR, and marrying his sister."
*is from Texas*
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ Mar 19 2008, 12:38 PM)
QUOTE (Stormtrooper53 @ Mar 19 2008, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 19 2008, 11:25 AM)
"Mike Huckabee showed a surprising amount of understanding and intelligence on the Reverend Wright issue today on Morning Joe."
You mean, he ain't one uh dem ig'nant suh-thuh-nuhs that walks around without shoes on, listenin' to Hank Williams, drinkin' Pabst Blue Ribbon, watchin' NASCAR, and marry-in' his sister?? Whodathunk?
Then again, this WAS written by someone at dailykos...
You misunderstand: "Mike Huckabee showed a surprising amount of understanding and intelligence on the Reverend Wright issue for an ignorant southerner that walks around without shoes on, listening to Hank Williams, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, watching NASCAR, and marrying his sister."
*is from Texas*
*is from and still in southern Louisiana, lived in a house with a bayou in front, cotton fields on the left and in back, and a family with 8 houn' dogs and two trucks up on blocks on the left. WITHOUT cable tv.*
"Surprising" is probably an accurate term... that is, it's "surprising" to people at the Daily Kos that a conservative evangelical actually has a brain.
Hell, that'd surprise me.
so going back to page 36, if I can recap this correctly...
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
QUOTE
Black theology (wiki quote)...
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
If you go back and read the rest of the thrad, you'll see nobody is saying that.
QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Mar 20 2008, 02:10 AM)
so going back to page 36, if I can recap this correctly...
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I (as an Obama supporter) can tell you that a) I disagree with Wright's views and b) Obama disagrees with Wright's views. I posted the Wiki link because I felt that people were starting to simply react to the comments they had heard, without understanding the larger context in which they should be taken. Even so, I'm not here to say that either a) I agree 100% with Black liberation theology, or b) all Black churches preach messages like this.
My point was only that it would do us good to try to understand the point of view that others have, without these shoot-from-the-hip, knee-jerk reactions.
QUOTE
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
Such as this one.
QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Mar 20 2008, 03:10 AM)
so going back to page 36, if I can recap this correctly...
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
QUOTE
Black theology (wiki quote)...
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
wow that is quite the dickish post, and people wonder why i dont post in this forum
i dont even have a rational response for the dumb sh!t you just posted
i mean even if you ARE that ignorant you probably shouldnt let people on the internet (or anywhere else) know it
QUOTE (Smith @ Mar 20 2008, 06:29 AM)
QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Mar 20 2008, 03:10 AM)
so going back to page 36, if I can recap this correctly...
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
Sadia Arabia lets the US use its land for GW1, Bin Laden get all mad and stuff, Clinton Admin. doesn't pull the trigger on BL when it has the chance = 9/11 being our fault in a nutshell. But its all good because Obama's preacher says so?
QUOTE
Black theology (wiki quote)...
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country's inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers' description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. 'There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
Holy sh!t! Seriously sh!t or get off the pot already. F'ck it, lets get that dream ticket talk going again so that maybe a Black man and a White woman can get together and achieve the top of mountain and let others eat crow, it can be done.
sorry asian man & hispanic man get in line and wait your turn. you guys can talk to me later about it personally being my fault for interment camps/railroads and land grabbing.
wow that is quite the dickish post, and people wonder why i dont post in this forum
i dont even have a rational response for the dumb sh!t you just posted
i mean even if you ARE that ignorant you probably shouldnt let people on the internet (or anywhere else) know it
Not that I was baiting you but I was hoping that people could read between the lines (I almost posted that as a disclaimer too but then I decided against it).
Nobody is going to advance anything by keeping to their own or by blaming groups "x, y, z" in todays times. Maybe thats just me but then again I do come from a very multi-cultural family and I choose to tell people that I'm American when they ask what race I am (if they want to talk about ethnic backgrounds, grab a chair). Sure we (Americans) are disfunctional at great number times but who is not?
So with all that said...If the Father/Bishop of my Church said things like that it would be over that instant.
that is an interesting discussion...
I will start a new thread
I will start a new thread
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 08:13 PM)
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
He defended himself very extemporaneously- not that I think he had to. I don't think she's pulled far enough ahead for it to matter yet. It's a minor fluctuation due to sensational media response, from everything I've seen.
The speech he gave about it was one of the best responses I've seen in politics for a long time. He didn't blame it on someone else, he didn't blame it on being distorted by the media, and he didn't just ignore it.
He gave a detailed, logical, historical, and very adult acknowledgement of why his pastor said those things, and why Obama himself doesn't believe them. He acknowledged however that there are people who still feel like that, and that if other people were treated in the same manner they'd be resentful as well. He acknowledged that feelings of racism and discrimination don't go away overnight just because someone magically declares that everyone has equality.
We'll just have to wait and see if treating the American voting public as though they're sensible, intelligent adults will actually work.
He gave a detailed, logical, historical, and very adult acknowledgement of why his pastor said those things, and why Obama himself doesn't believe them. He acknowledged however that there are people who still feel like that, and that if other people were treated in the same manner they'd be resentful as well. He acknowledged that feelings of racism and discrimination don't go away overnight just because someone magically declares that everyone has equality.
We'll just have to wait and see if treating the American voting public as though they're sensible, intelligent adults will actually work.
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 08:13 PM)
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
"Still a statistical probability"? He's the freaking frontrunner! He has a nearly insurmountable delegate lead (which is how these things are decided), and he also leads in the popular vote (in case you need a credibility argument). The only way Clinton wins the nomination is by rending the Democratic party asunder. (Not that I'd put it past her.)
I might also remind you that it is March, and the election is in November. A lot can happen in the next seven months. If you don't believe me, consider that the Iowa caucus only took place 2 1/2 months ago.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 20 2008, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 08:13 PM)
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
"Still a statistical probability"? He's the freaking frontrunner! He has a nearly insurmountable delegate lead (which is how these things are decided), and he also leads in the popular vote (in case you need a credibility argument). The only way Clinton wins the nomination is by rending the Democratic party asunder. (Not that I'd put it past her.)
I might also remind you that it is March, and the election is in November. A lot can happen in the next seven months. If you don't believe me, consider that the Iowa caucus only took place 2 1/2 months ago.
like the republican candidate DYING, he is a 70 year old cancer survivor
(what happens if he dies, does romney get the nomination?)
Only if he promises never to say "who let the dogs out" ever again ever ever
QUOTE (Smith @ Mar 20 2008, 07:16 PM)
like the republican candidate DYING, he is a 70 year old cancer survivor
(what happens if he dies, does romney get the nomination?)
(what happens if he dies, does romney get the nomination?)
The Republicans win via the sympathy vote, and John McCain gets cannonised and for the next ten years Republican nominees competing in the primaries will debate about who is the most like Ronald Reagan/John McCain.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 20 2008, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 08:13 PM)
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
"Still a statistical probability"? He's the freaking frontrunner! He has a nearly insurmountable delegate lead (which is how these things are decided), and he also leads in the popular vote (in case you need a credibility argument). The only way Clinton wins the nomination is by rending the Democratic party asunder. (Not that I'd put it past her.)
I might also remind you that it is March, and the election is in November. A lot can happen in the next seven months. If you don't believe me, consider that the Iowa caucus only took place 2 1/2 months ago.
Yeah, a probability but not an inevitability. He still has a (probably insurmountable) lead, but none of that is going to matter if he loses the support of the American people. If people aren't convinced by his speechifying as of late then they're not going to bat an eye if/when the superdelagates give the nomination to Hillary. And she could still win the popular vote, which would give the Super-D's all the excuse they need.
I still support Obama, and that may be a worst case scenario, but it seems a lot more plausible now than it did a week ago. A lot of it depends on how long it takes people to forget this nonsense, but I'm not convinced they will, and whether or not they believe/pay attention to anything Obama says from now on.
QUOTE (Smith @ Mar 20 2008, 09:16 PM)
(what happens if he dies, does romney get the nomination?)
NOES
I don't think this has really hurt Obama amongst his supporters, and certainly no more so than Hillary has been hurt with her supporters. These are the sorts of things that I categorize as "excuse" incidents. Since those who have confidence in the candidate aren't shaken by it. So such incidents only serve as excuses for further division to arise.
And I don't think it's really that productive, whichever side you happen to be on, because everyone perceives "the other side" as being the ones at fault. Staying focused on our common purpose and uniting behind it is the most beneficial because it's the hardest option. Of course, staying divided and factionalized is easy.
And I don't think it's really that productive, whichever side you happen to be on, because everyone perceives "the other side" as being the ones at fault. Staying focused on our common purpose and uniting behind it is the most beneficial because it's the hardest option. Of course, staying divided and factionalized is easy.
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Mar 20 2008, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (sertile @ Mar 20 2008, 08:13 PM)
Getting back to the whole "election" thing, I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm pretty sure this has finished Obama's campaign. His "whiteness" has been exploded, his honesty has been exploded, and his judgment - so highly touted - has been thoroughly exploded. Now he's behind Clinton in the polls and - more importantly - behind McCain. He's likely to start bleeding superdelegates, fast, and even if he does get the nomination (which is still a statistical probability) he'll most likely be unelectable.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
"Still a statistical probability"? He's the freaking frontrunner! He has a nearly insurmountable delegate lead (which is how these things are decided), and he also leads in the popular vote (in case you need a credibility argument). The only way Clinton wins the nomination is by rending the Democratic party asunder. (Not that I'd put it past her.)
I might also remind you that it is March, and the election is in November. A lot can happen in the next seven months. If you don't believe me, consider that the Iowa caucus only took place 2 1/2 months ago.
Yeah, a probability but not an inevitability. He still has a (probably insurmountable) lead, but none of that is going to matter if he loses the support of the American people. If people aren't convinced by his speechifying as of late then they're not going to bat an eye if/when the superdelagates give the nomination to Hillary. And she could still win the popular vote, which would give the Super-D's all the excuse they need.
I still support Obama, and that may be a worst case scenario, but it seems a lot more plausible now than it did a week ago. A lot of it depends on how long it takes people to forget this nonsense, but I'm not convinced they will, and whether or not they believe/pay attention to anything Obama says from now on.
The political winds blow this way and that all the time... after Iowa, people were wondering aloud if Hillary should drop out. Then came New Hampshire and her "stunning comeback". Then came South Carolina and Obama was in the lead again. Then came bla bla bla and bla bla bla...
It's a bit myopic to judge the strength of Obama's (or Clinton's) candidacy merely on the media narrative of the past week. But I do find it interesting how Hillary is still viewed as this juggernaut, and Obama as an also-ran, despite the fact that it is almost impossible for Hillary to win at this point. It almost seems to me that there's this perception that Obama can't really win.... like, really... come on... (or to quote one of the Clinton campaign's more recent slogans: "Get Real".)
And no matter what anyone says about superdelegates, the fact is that the Democrats want to win this fall, and they know that voting against the will of the people would annihilate their nominee's credibility. It really would be 1968 all over again.
P.S. the reason why I originally clicked on this thread: Bill Richardson just endorsed Obama.
I'm not sure i even understood either of those blogs...
QUOTE (SkyClonus @ Mar 21 2008, 08:27 AM)
Gotta 
politics:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...ouse_guest.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...s_passport.html
politics:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...ouse_guest.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...s_passport.html
Hilarity...especially the first.
Makes Wright look a little less militant, huh?
meh, I don't care if he dances naked in the aisles and worships Satan... I'm not voting for him
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.