|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
the good wrote:
Would you be happy if McCain put Romney on the ticket, so the mormon could tell the black man to stop lecturing us about race? Now that would be some funny shit.
Better yet, the Mormon and Obama patrner up, creating an across the board phony, slogan slinging, four faced coaltion that keeps all I-wanna-feel-good idiots from coast to coast happy - the ultimate in unity that we are apparently supposed to be seeking. |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
PartyDoll MEG wrote:
Riffy..this political arena isn't my thing and you know it.
But sometimes I just can't let things slide.
Our senses...can be very selective in what they let into our thinking brain. And Our thinking brain can also stagnate from hearing/thinking the same things over and over again.
I am not gonna say that Obama is the be all and end all to save America, that he is (forgive the term) "lily white" with his politics. No politician on this earth is in my opinion!! I do not think that you and I heard the same speech yesterday. I would ask you to try to listen again and put aside those things that get in the way of your hearing the sincerity, forthrightness, of what he had to say..
This thread alone is evidence of what Obama spoke of yesterday...
It is a long time until November. Lots more issues to deal with, and skeletons in the closet all around.
and I hate politics!
Meggy I'm not saying that the speech wasn't a good one. It may have even bordered on a great one. The problem that I have with it is really pretty simple. He only gave it because he was forced to. He did not disown this blatant racist. He tried, in vain, to compare him to his white grandmother. The difference is that you don't choose your grandmother! He chose to attend this church. He chose to consider this blatant racist as a "spiritual mentor".
Instead of offering up any valid reasons for embracing this church, and this racist preacher, he turned the tables and tried to make it about confronting the American racial divide. The problem with that is that he has, since day one, claimed that his platform was about bridging the gap between the races. He was running to offer hope, change, a new vision. Then we find out that he, and only he among the three candidates, attends a church where this hate was preached from the pulpit repeatedly. He was married by this man. His children were baptized by this man.
I don't know about you, but I would NEVER expose my children to this kind of hate speech from a "man of the cloth". I would never allow this church to indoctrinate my children with this kind of racial rhetoric and hatered. I wouldn't do that at all, and if I did it show that I had a lack of judgement.
Riffy |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Pdog while you may bring some valid points to light you are still ignoring the one truth that no Obama supporter has addressed yet. HE WAS THE ONE ATTENDING A RACIST, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-SEMETIC CHURCH FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS!!! He has absolutely no fucking right to lecture me about race!!! I do not attend a racist church. I am not a racist, and I do NOT ASSOCIATE WITH RACISTS!! He, however, does associate with a known, proven, blatant racist. He does attend this racist church, and has done for twenty years!
No, but his point was that you do live in a racist and a racially charged country, same as him.
I am pretty sure that in his mind he attempted to address your issues, because I am pretty sure that in his mind your view of his church is reductive and in its own way expedient. Anyway, I bet he thought it was built into his argument. Whether or not he succeeded in addressing this is up to the listener. If you don't buy it, you don't buy it.
quote:
Riff:
It's a nice little trick that he pulled yesterday. A good offense was his best defense I guess. Instead of offering any valid explanation or apology for attending this hateful church, that anyone in their right mind finds divisive and offensive, he has the unmitigated gall to turn the tables and lecture the vast majority of Americans who would never even consider attending this kind of church about race!!! Did I miss something here?!
You use the word lecture like he was sitting us all down on our beds and saying, "Now you know you have been bad, little children." That's not the way I heard it at all, but, as we all know, I can relate to what the guy is saying and am relieved to hear a candidate string complex sentences together. Still don't know if I'm voting for him in May.
quote:
So I'll ask again. Why do I get a lecture from a man that owes me, and the country, an explanation and an apology for his complete lack of judgement?!
OK, let me try this one. I think the first part of the speech, at least until he went platformin', was an explanation, he feels like he doesn't owe your ass an apology because he jist got thru explainin', goddamn, and as far as "lecture" goes - what did you want him to do, get down on his knees and say, "I'se sorry, massa?"
To me, it sounds like it went: I know why hearing my preacher holler is upsetting y'all, it's 'cause that shit he said was fucked up, and shit between races been fucked up, and I guess I am going to try do deal with how fucked up shit has been.
If his campaign does not continue to deal with this, if this is just a one-shot deal, then I agree with your charges of expediency completely. He will look foolish, destroy the democratic party, and become this year's Ralph Nader. If he somehow turns this into a new way to campaign and wins the Dem nomination, then he's going to have do "own" this in public until November, and it's going to be a wild and crazy time. If he pulls it out, then he's the toast with the most and welcome to the job. If not, then he's this decade's McGovern and we're in for years of disillusioned drug taking youth and really bad music.
quote:
The only people that are stuck in partisanship mode here are the ones that refuse to acknowledge Obama's huge lack of judgement, and instead heap praise on a speech that would be meaningless had he not been caught attending a church that preaches hate on a regular basis.
Riffy
For the record, that speech was no I Have a Dream to my ears. Flawed in many ways as a piece of writing - particularly at the end - the volunteer in South Carolina analogy was really playing to the cheap seats and may have gone foul. Not out of the park. But do I think it was heartfelt? Well, yes, my naive idealistic ass thinks it was, sho nuff.
Who exactly are you talking to with this 'refuse to acknowledge O's hloj' business - seems like most left leaners in this thread have been trying to take this on contradictions and all. I may not have been reading closely enough, though. But you got Rev. Pdog tearing his heart out over the race issue (don't mean to accuse you of leanin' left, man), CCM calling him to the carpet-munching bitches for his BS, Meg HATIN politics, Prodigal Son talkin' smart, Starbuck buckin' and havin' a birthday and postin Resevoir Socks, and that leaves, who, BBJ? Don't be so reductive. That's too right partisan an argument tactic, just like being expansive is too left partisan.
I mean, I personally should be all over the super smart articulate black guy with the exceedingly liberal peacenik agenda, but the issue of his savvy is a big red flag for me.
Besides, at this point can it be partisan? It's still BO VS BCW as far as I can tell, which would make it, what, subpartisan? Partpartisan? Utterly fucking ridiculous and disastrously urpartisan?
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Brilliant, monumental, historic; the most serious address on the race issue in a generation.
Just a bit of an exaggeration? I've seen better speeches on "the race issue" here.
Anway, its not going to happen no matter what he claims he never knew that he clearly heard. You can't attend that church and be elected president in the U.S. That would be as whacky as electing a guy who goes to a church that baptizes dead people, and says god digs polygafucking (but just not right now). American voters won't allow it.
If you truly have some good vibe about Obama, you should be more worried about his Senate seat. You can actually see where this guy is going to be in 10 years. |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Meggy I'm not saying that the speech wasn't a good one. It may have even bordered on a great one. The problem that I have with it is really pretty simple. He only gave it because he was forced to. He did not disown this blatant racist. He tried, in vain, to compare him to his white grandmother. The difference is that you don't choose your grandmother! He chose to attend this church. He chose to consider this blatant racist as a "spiritual mentor".
Instead of offering up any valid reasons for embracing this church, and this racist preacher, he turned the tables and tried to make it about confronting the American racial divide. The problem with that is that he has, since day one, claimed that his platform was about bridging the gap between the races. He was running to offer hope, change, a new vision. Then we find out that he, and only he among the three candidates, attends a church where this hate was preached from the pulpit repeatedly. He was married by this man. His children were baptized by this man.
I don't know about you, but I would NEVER expose my children to this kind of hate speech from a "man of the cloth". I would never allow this church to indoctrinate my children with this kind of racial rhetoric and hatered. I wouldn't do that at all, and if I did it show that I had a lack of judgement.
Riffy
You and I are not BLACK!!
You know the "thinking brain" thing Riffy!
Instead of judging from our reality, we should make an effort to understand from his reality and Obama DID try to explain his churchs methodology.
Cynicism abounds in the USA. And I am guilty of it.
We owe our kids a better world, and I for one am thankful that someone is still willing to try and get our youth interested in their country's politics. I am sick to death of the stagnated waters of Washington...
and yes Moonie..I much rather listen to Obama's message(even if I don't agree with all he stands for) than the same old shit over and over again...
[Edited by PartyDoll MEG] |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
"Instead of judging from our reality, we should make an effort to understand from his reality and Obama DID try to explain his churchs methodology."
Seek help quickly meg.
|
|
|
| Riffhard |
Bottom line is this. Barack Obama has attended a church that by his own account goes against everything that hs stated platform stands for. This shows a complete lack of judgement.
Then instead of just manning up and saying, "Look I attended this church, and I was wrong to do so." He tries to spin it to his favor by playing on "white guilt". Well I am very sorry, but I feel zero white guilt!!! I don't associate with racists, and I sure as hell don't listen to them preach racism to myself, and my kids! It's really that simple.
He stated is his "brilliant" speech, "I'm sure you all have heard things from your rabbis or ministers that you strongly disagree with." Really? Not me! If my minister even came close to the kind of hatred that this guy preached he would never see my ass in the pews again! Ever! Yet Obama went back and back and back again for twenty long years. This shows a complete lack of judgement.
You guys can spin that shit all you want, but it won't change the fact that it is he, not I, that attends a church that holds an insanely racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic belief system. That people here are even trying to defend this still stuns me.
To me it shows that many here would rather just rally around their new hero, than step back and admit that he has shown, not only piss poor judgement, but has conned them into accepting his "latest" truth.
This can not be spun guys! Stop trying.
Riffy |
|
|
| CrissCrossMind |
Just what is the Obama message ... if you look at the issues ... the two Dems are siblings that like each other ... Obama has no message ... or at least he has been off it for at least a week ... with good judgment he would have never let himself be associted with the Dear Rev ... much less welcome him into the family ... hatred is wrong no matter which race spits it out! ... CCM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Bottom line is this. Barack Obama has attended a church that by his own account goes against everything that hs stated platform stands for. This shows a complete lack of judgement.
Then instead of just manning up and saying, "Look I attended this church, and I was wrong to do so." He tries to spin it to his favor by playing on "white guilt". Well I am very sorry, but I feel zero white guilt!!! I don't associate with racists, and I sure as hell don't listen to them preach racism to myself, and my kids! It's really that simple.
He stated is his "brilliant" speech, "I'm sure you all have heard things from your rabbis or ministers that you strongly disagree with." Really? Not me! If my minister even came close to the kind of hatred that this guy preached he would never see my ass in the pews again! Ever! Yet Obama went back and back and back again for twenty long years. This shows a complete lack of judgement.
You guys can spin that shit all you want, but it won't change the fact that it is he, not I, that attends a church that holds an insanely racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic belief system. That people here are even trying to defend this still stuns me.
To me it shows that many here would rather just rally around their new hero, than step back and admit that he has shown, not only piss poor judgement, but has conned them into accepting his "latest" truth.
This can not be spun guys! Stop trying.
Riffy
You're so right, Riffy. I have never seen you post anything on this board that could be construed as racist, reductive, anti-Islamist epithets.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Not that he cannot defend himself, but I have never seen Riffy post anything that I would consider racist aor anti-Islam.
I have seen him refer to terrorists as Islamofacists.
But I never took that as anti-Islamic generally.
Seems to me he is singling out those members of a religion that take extremist views in the name of the religion.
Rightly so, he recognizes that these particular idiots are our enemy.
That is a distinction that many miss in the name of political correctness or white guilt.
It is okay to take off the rose colored glasses and not like your enemies.
You might live longer that way.
|
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Better yet, the Mormon and Obama patrner up, creating an across the board phony, slogan slinging, four faced coaltion that keeps all I-wanna-feel-good idiots from coast to coast happy - the ultimate in unity that we are apparently supposed to be seeking.
HAHA! |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
You're so right, Riffy. I have never seen you post anything on this board that could be construed as racist, reductive, anti-Islamist epithets.
LOL! Nasty I couldn't help but detect a touch of sarcasm in this post.
There is a huge difference in my completely understandable resentment and anger direct towards radical Islam. This is neither racist nor reductive. I would be willing to bet that you could not go back through the archives and find one post of mine where I slammed all Muslims. That's because I do not equate all Muslims with radical Islam anymore than I equate all Christians with a church that preaches Black Separatism.
Would you have accused a person for being racist or reductive if in 1942 they held some rather strong anti-Nazi beliefs? Or after the attack on Pearl Harbor had they expressed anti-Imperial Japanese beliefs?
Besides, Obama's own preacher and "spiritual mentor" has been preaching exactly what your sarcastic post is trying to accuse me of.
Some here play that game with regards to persons of another race, creed, sexual orientation, ethnic, or national background. Hell, I even know one guy that slams anyone that has any German ancestry in their family tree. I ain't the one though. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Obama showed poor judgement. That's not an opinion on my part here. That's just a fact. To date nobody can explain to me why going to a church for twenty years that espouses racist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic sermons shows good judgement. I, however, could give you countless reasons why it shows poor judgement.
Riffy
|
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Facts are facts, and the fact is the Dems have screwed the pooch once again no matter which candidate they pick at the convention. Neither can win at this point. |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Pdog while you may bring some valid points to light you are still ignoring the one truth that no Obama supporter has addressed yet. HE WAS THE ONE ATTENDING A RACIST, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-SEMETIC CHURCH FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS!!! He has absolutely no fucking right to lecture me about race!!!
Riffy
Just out of curiousity, who would you let lecture you about race? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
LOL! Nasty I couldn't help but detect a touch of sarcasm in this post.
There is a huge difference in my completely understandable resentment and anger direct towards radical Islam. This is neither racist nor reductive. I would be willing to bet that you could not go back through the archives and find one post of mine where I slammed all Muslims. That's because I do not equate all Muslims with radical Islam anymore than I equate all Christians with a church that preaches Black Separatism.
Would you have accused a person for being racist or reductive if in 1942 they held some rather strong anti-Nazi beliefs? Or after the attack on Pearl Harbor had they expressed anti-Imperial Japanese beliefs?
Besides, Obama's own preacher and "spiritual mentor" has been preaching exactly what your sarcastic post is trying to accuse me of.
Some here play that game with regards to persons of another race, creed, sexual orientation, ethnic, or national background. Hell, I even know one guy that slams anyone that has any German ancestry in their family tree. I ain't the one though. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Obama showed poor judgement. That's not an opinion on my part here. That's just a fact. To date nobody can explain to me why going to a church for twenty years that espouses racist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic sermons shows good judgement. I, however, could give you countless reasons why it shows poor judgement.
Riffy
And on the point about poor judgement I have agreed w/you every time. But who are you fighting against? Who on the board is providing the spin? Lots of times you don't discuss, you platitude, which is why I accused you of being dogmatic yesterday. Is moving with a discussion too close to rolling with a spin, or is debate purely a game of standing on opposite sides of the room hurling mudballs at your opponent? Maybe it is - certainly considering we're on RO, all we're doing is batting a ball back and forth - it's not like we're getting anything done.
Team Nasty has neither the energy nor the inclination to go trawling through the archives trying to spin any of your old posts otherwise, so I hereby withdraw my last shot. I couldn't help posting it. Thought it was funny.
I would hope that Nanker would do me the same courtesy of rescinding the whole "white guilt" thing tossed in my direction, since I don't think that's where I'm coming from, and equally doubt that one could trawl through the archives and find an instance of it in my posts.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
It really wasn't directed toward you in particular, Nasty.
I was just making a point.
In fact, I have always considered you to be one of the more well-reasoned and intellectually honest members of the slightly-left-of-center crowd here!
[Edited by nankerphelge] |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
It really wasn't directed toward you in particular, Nasty.
I was just making a point.
In fact, I have always considered you to be one of the more well-reasoned and intellectually honest members of the slightly-left-of-center crowd here!
[Edited by nankerphelge]
Gotcha, Nank. Thanks for the clarification. And the complement. I am just trying to speak my sober mind. Your ability to speak your mind is only exceeded by your skill at holding a grudge!
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
"Your ability to speak your mind is only exceeded by your skill at holding a grudge!"
You know it man!
I am one of the easiest going people you will ever meet.
My parents instilled in me at an early age that you should never pre-judge people. Treat people with dignity and respect until they give you reason to act otherwise.
I also learned from my father, once someone does you wrong, rarely forgive and never forget.
Man did me wrong.
I shall remind him of it until the day I die!!!
Which reminds me...
Time for an update I think!
[Edited by nankerphelge] |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Just out of curiousity, who would you let lecture you about race?
Perhaps someone who did not attend a church that preaches racism as part of their normal Sunday services. That would be a start. I would never teach my kids to be racists, and I sure as hell would never willingly expose them to the rants of a racist. But then again, I try and let my better judgement guide me on issues such as race.
Riffy |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
And on the point about poor judgement I have agreed w/you every time. But who are you fighting against? Who on the board is providing the spin? Lots of times you don't discuss, you platitude, which is why I accused you of being dogmatic yesterday. Is moving with a discussion too close to rolling with a spin, or is debate purely a game of standing on opposite sides of the room hurling mudballs at your opponent? Maybe it is - certainly considering we're on RO, all we're doing is batting a ball back and forth - it's not like we're getting anything done.
Team Nasty has neither the energy nor the inclination to go trawling through the archives trying to spin any of your old posts otherwise, so I hereby withdraw my last shot. I couldn't help posting it. Thought it was funny.
I would hope that Nanker would do me the same courtesy of rescinding the whole "white guilt" thing tossed in my direction, since I don't think that's where I'm coming from, and equally doubt that one could trawl through the archives and find an instance of it in my posts.
Well Nasty I think that you have a very valid point about RO being a place where one side rarely moves the other to their side of the argument, or their side of the aisle.
The point that I have been trying to make is simple. Some here, out of sheer political partisan will, are seemingly unwilling to accept the fact that the great Hopenator Obama was a character study in bad judgement. They willing suspend common sense just because they can't turn on one of their own.
As I have said time and time again if my candidate were caught in a similar compromised position he would cease to be my candidate immediately. My belief in him would be gone right then and there. I just don't get the defense of this guy. I don't understand how people can praise his speech as "brilliant and monumental" while at the same time ignoring the fact that the man delivering this life altering speech went to a church that preached the exact kind of racism and hate that the speech railed against in the first place!
Please know this though. None of my posts are ever personally directed at anybody with any kind of vengeance or anger. They are merely my attempt at, 1)trying to understand the other side, and 2)trying to convince these folks that they are being led down the a path by a lying Pied Piper. I have thus far succeeded at neither of these points! LOL!
Riffy |
|
|
| Starbuck |
could someone please post the cliff notes to this thread? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Well, Riff, I think that this is kind of what I'm talking about here - you use phrases like "some here" and snark "quotes" around "brilliant and monumental" and generally act as if the vast majority of liberals on this thread are sucking Barack's dick. In fact, in the last, what, three/four pages of this thread, almost certainly since the speech, I can only find one poster who is using the terminology to describe the speech that you're using, and you have responded to him and his points many times more than he's posted. I'm not so sure he's not just tweaking your honk. It is this sort of turning one example into a personal war that makes DLM arguments and other accusations of persecution seem, well, kind of like crank behavior. You may be responding to stuff you're seeing on other points in the internet, I dunno - but it really can sometimes seem like you're talking to a . . . hypothetical . . . opponent.
I would also argue that we are in the same (chat) room and that sometimes your use of multiple exclamation points and repetitive arguments & catch phrases makes you sound a lot like an overheated preacher in a black church. Your posts come across much more rational when you use your inside voice, like the last couple.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
could someone please post the cliff notes to this thread?
Nanky gave them to his monkeys. Feel free to go get them |
|
|
| pdog |
am i really hearing a Republican, ask who should be the person to talk to us about race? While answering, we only get who sohludn't, not who sohuld. I think it's funny, because The Republican party, in my lifetime has had many leaders and events that are so obvious at race baIting, to get white voters angry and behind them. Republicans in very recent times have done the same thing with gays...
Anyone care to respond on this;
"Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption."
The Supreme Court ruled... Hmmm! In 1981, I was very much aware of the color of my skin, and how it greatly gave me an advantage in America. Even my pot dealers, would tell me, don't sell to niggers. I got jobs as akid, from people who told me, flat out. We won't hire a black kid. am i the only one? Are you people here telling me, I lived this very unique experience in the 80's, regarding race and racism in america?
This one example. Reagan, a man held up by Republicans as a demi - god. In 2007 they tried reincarnating him to be president again. So... Tell me. Who the fuck are you, Republicans, to come from a party, that has clearly shown racist ideals, to now judge and lecture about race? and demand an accountabily for going to a church? Here this... Churches, at least black churches in america, don't make laws and effect policy!!! And answer Nasty's question. Who shouls be talking about RACE?
And don't get me started on how Dems and liberals play race too. Like screaming about NOLA and the poor blacks, until a bus load of them showed up in their city.
I'm still waiting. Tell you all the truth. Nasty is one of the few, who is being honest. I'd like to think I am, but my past is flawed. I ran with groups of kids, that would fight other groups of kids, and these groups were easily distinguished by race. And we fought b/c of the difference of color. I do know why we did this. See in my white neighborhood in Jersey, a black person was not allowed to walk down the street, unless they were picking up our trash. People would freak the fuck out. and we couldn't go to their hoods as well... I didn't imagine this. I've seen the anger remain, on all sides, and people are actually go to be shocked, and bothered by a black man being angry? Maybe we need a president who has been on the other side, not one who stands behind a party, that has overtly been racist towards blacks. I say it again, you white motherfuckers are scared, because now the racism might have you on the other side!!! Kinda scares you, like showing the image f a black prisoner being released from jail, and then killing a white person... *gasp*
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Dude, I'm just a white boy from Missouri whose primary experience of black culture is old records. You are coming WAY cleaner and to my mind getting WAY closer to the heart of the matter than I am. I just type more accurate.
|
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Dude, I'm just a white boy from Missouri whose primary experience of black culture is old records. You are coming WAY cleaner and to my mind getting WAY closer to the heart of the matter than I am. I just type more accurate.
I could use a could typist... |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
pdog wrote:
am i really hearing a Republican, ask who should be the person to talk to us about race? While answering, we only get who sohludn't, not who sohuld. I think it's funny, because The Republican party, in my lifetime has had many leaders and events that are so obvious at race baIting, to get white voters angry and behind them. Republicans in very recent times have done the same thing with gays...
exactly - the republicans allign themselves with the radical right to win elections, but never denouce the often hateful, narrow-minded crap some of these groups spew toward blacks, gays, hispanics, other religions etc....
this righteous indignation is curious to me.
|
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
texile wrote:
exactly - the republicans allign themselves with the radical right to win elections, but never denouce the often hateful, narrow-minded crap some of these groups spew toward blacks, gays, hispanics, other religions etc....
this righteous indignation is curious to me.
There's no one in the Republican party, to speak for the black, lesbian woman? Condi... Condi. Why, why don't you speak up? |
|
|
| wasted |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
He's toast! The speech bordered on a Socialist pipe dream, and a slam against anyone that pointed out his very real faults. Only the staunchest blind liberals will see it as anything else.
You guys have been used like a cheap whore.
Riffy
Not sure if we saw the same speech but the one I saw yesterday was borderline brilliant and quite effective. One of the best speeches I have ever heard. The only part that was average about it was the last part about the campain worker Ashley.
Here is an interesting reason why Obama may have spent 20 years in this black church in Chicago:
"Wright's rantings are not reflective of Obama's views on anything. Why did he stay in the church? Because he's a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can't say that. So what should he say?
He needs to get out of this mess with subtlety, the kind Bill Clinton should have used to escape the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- but didn't. As the controversy continues, Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn't agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving.
While he lets this fact sink in, he needs to continue to distance himself from Wright by characterizing that kind of anger and animosity as a thing of a generation past. He needs to compare the progress of which whites are proud in discarding the racism of our forebears with his own pride at being a post-racial candidate. He needs, again and again, to reject what Wright says and emphasize his belief in America and the validity and morality of the American Dream.
As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.
All these themes were evident and articulately presented in Obama's Tuesday speech on race.
What Obama needs not to do is to resort to the kind of Clintonian fudging that animated his interview with Keith Olbermann. By saying "I wasn't there" and "I didn't know" and "I didn't hear him say it," he will invite contempt and derision. If he were to continue in that vein, he would buy himself a controversy akin to that which drowned John Kerry in the facts and allegations of his service in Vietnam. People will surface to say, "I sat next to him, and Wright said such and such," and Obama will be hostage to everybody's subjective memory.
But if he handles the situation with subtlety and lets what he cannot say -- that it was opportunism that led him to stay in that church -- sink in among the electorate, he can and will survive this battle.
And let's remember one other thing: The Democrats will increasingly realize that he will be their nominee and, in continuing this battle, they are eating their own"
|
|
|
| Condoleezza Rice |
quote:
Condi... Condi. Why, why don't you speak up?
Look here, son. The only piece of advice I can give you is this: Lord loves a workin' man, don't trust whitey, and see a doctor and get rid of it.
I hope this helps.
CR
|
|
