More know what Minister Wright said to his congregation Than know how many died in Iraq We ignore our 4,000 dead heroes but go ballistic because someone said something to somebody else. Some are so furious, wild and crazy that I recommend Minister Wright get some protection, a bullet proof church garment. You think no one would dare? Maybe you should read about the Bishop that got shot on the back in the middle of Mass by soldiers trained by us. Legend has it that his last words were "Forgive them for they know not..." in Spanish, of course.
Surveys found that most Americans, regardless color or creed, do not have a clue on how many have died in Iraq. Yet, I have seen people go ballistic while trying to quote Minister Wright. Whatever happen to Freedom of Religon? Is that Casualty Number: 4001.
By the way, why did the 4,000 die? Was it to fight against which religion? Maybe, Pres. Bush was right-on when HE called it a "Crusade", ignoring the writings in the 13th Century, St. Thomas Aquinas, that first defined a Just War, which was applied to END the, so-called, "Christian" Crusades and, some say, the Vietnam War.
And, I thought we had gone beyond such wild behaviour. It is called Civility, remember?
The Founding Fathers wrote the Perfect Charter for us to grow to a BETTER and more civil society, is there hope now? Now, that our ugly response to ugly words is obvious, albeit, unrecognized and ignored or approved. Is this the highest peak in American growth? Will we go downhill from here on out?
I hope not, ops, I used the word "HOPE" that was invented by Pres. Bill Clinton and picked up from the ground by Sen. Obama. Maybe he will lead us, not to the city Hope, but to the nation we all "hope" to see before we join the other 4,000 that died for us.
Posted on Tue, 03/25/2008 - 11:33 — by MikeSar
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
Report SJT1
Freedom of religion eh? LOL The kind of freedom of religion that I support is freedom from attacks from the anti American ?Civil? Liberties Union, anti religious politicians and other anti religious organizations who tend to go after Judeo Christian groups more than they would Mr Wright. When an "intellectually" small self proclaimed minister such as Mr. Wright uses the pulpit to preach socialist politics to blame the white man for creating aids to wipe out the black race for one and to damn America among many of his absurd rhetorical sermons, I dont call that religion, I call it "hate" speech that is no different than the so called ?sermons? of Farrakhan or OBL. Mr Wright claims to speak in the name of Jesus, and I find that offensive. I remember each and every service member, like my nephews serving on the front lines, who give their lives fighting a religion who's "ideology" or goals have been manipulated to serve the agenda of evil, vile and hateful individuals who are more evil and vile than Mr Wright and his friend Farrakhan. It offends me even more as its should the Marines that Mr Wright was supposedly one of their own but yet he damns this nation that the troops fight for. This ex marine is without honor. No one has forgotten the sacrifice of our troops, nor can we ignore individuals like Mr Wright who always endevour to stir the pot of controversy. People may say this is a much ado about nothing (I suppose Bob Jones was much ado about nothing too), but its everything when you got a presidential candidate who questionably deny's hearing hate speech during his 25 years of membership in this church, but yet may espouse the dangerous values of Mr Wright in the oval office. The book inspired by this hateful unAmerican as it was written by his disciple was called "Audacity of Hope", but sounds more like "Audacity of Dopes". Theres no hope with these dopes.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 437
Report chewy
I don't think that Obama is Reverend Wright or Bob Jones....he is his own man just like you and I are. I think Obama is a pretty nice fellow. If he had evil in his heart, it would have shown by now. After all, he has done a lot of humanitarian work for his community. The Reverend has done some good work too, but unfortunately, he has a lot of scars left over from the sixities that he has not come to terms with. You know why people go to church? To pray and get next to God, not to hear political diatribes. I don't think this fiery rhetoric happened every Sunday; you can get that on television.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
Report SJT1
I didnt say the Obama or Mr. Wright are Bob Jones. I was making a comparison of the situations and the uproar from Dems who criticized the presidential candidates who spoke at the "racist" Bob Jones U. and this current controversy with Mr Wrights racist remarks which Dems want to forget already because there are bigger more important issues than this. Obama may be a nice guy if he's not trashing grandma, but so is Hillary if she's not pms-ing and plotting and John McCain if he's not losing his temper and letting loose with the f-bombs at everybody. You dont need to remind me why people go to church, but theres no getting close to God when you got a self proclaimed pastor damning the nation. Alot of black and white ministers I know would have never gone that route, and the man wasnt preaching for God when he said that. It was more of an off the cuff rant that serves no purpose in a sermon or in a church even. Rather than damning the country and blaming whites for the country's ills, he should pray for it and be accountable for what he says. I dont think he realized the severity and impact of his words.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
I think he was fully aware of the impact ... and the meaning ... of his words. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only YOU can prevent inner-city fires!
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
Report SJT1
I dont think the kind of impact he was hitting for is this current controversy. If he had any common sense he would have thought first before spewing.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
You are being a little careless with your pronouns, but my assumption is that the "he" to which you are referring is the Reverend Wright (not Barack Obama). I also suspect that you are making many major assumptions about the Reverend (such as your ability to read his mind and know just why it was he said what he said, whenever it was that he said it). So let's take a deep breath and deconstruct this, shall we?
First, the Reverend Wright seems to be an intelligent and articulate man. I base this solely upon the few seconds of video played unceasingly to stir us up by the main stream media, always able to make mountains of molehills when the real culprits are using a backhoe to yard all your belongings out the back wall. A few seconds do not represent the sum of a person's life (just as I know there are two or three minutes -- LOL -- of me saying things of which I am neither proud nor would be happy for the rest of the world to see, I bet just about anything that you, too, have one or two such skeletons in your closet). So, let's not be so haste to condemn a man and all that he has done because of a few bad moments. Admittedly, they are not particularly polite and could easily have been said in more condescending or polite ways, but what he said is nothing new nor particularly startling.
In terms of those words, however. First, I am going to guess that you never have walked a mile in a black man's shoes. I am further going to guess that, though it is easy to say that you can understand why a person might think that others are out to get him, you have never really had someone do something to you simply because of the way you looked. My friend Clayton and I have both agreed that there is no way, for example, that I can ever truly understand just what it is that people do or say that makes a Jew feel like he (or she) is being discriminated against by those people ... because I am not Jewish and do not have to live with those historically generated feelings. Unless you are a black person ... and you just might be, so I am trying to be careful here ... there is no way in the world that you can really understand just what it is that makes a black person feel threatened, suspected, hated, or rejected simply because he (or she) is black. As I said in another message (maybe in a different thread), I have never ever had a clerk in a convenience store reach for the bat behind the counter when I walk into his store (or even give the look suggesting he wished he had one), but I have seen many a clerk give that look to black men. It's a little thing. But it is very real, and a fundamental part of the problem we must someday address if we are to ever cross the bridge that our continued refusal to confront the issue has built.
All of that is merely prelude to me saying that racism is present in this country. So is sexism. So is homophobism. So is religious discrimination. All this denial about the truth of the Reverend Wright's words is not going to get us anywhere. In his lifetime, as a marine who offered up his life for his country only to return to Jim Crow and bitter racial discrimination ... violent racial discrimination ... I think what he has experienced and seen gives him a right to speak out about it. And if he thinks that the white majority in this country has had more than a casual hand in creating the conditions through which he has had to endure, then I think you need to listen to his words and at least accept that there is truth in them.
We may never know how the AIDS virus came into existence, though there are some pretty smart folks who have suggested it is not solely a natural evolution of a virus. Assuming there is a possibility that AIDS was developed in a laboratory to be used as a weapon (much as LSD and who knows what else had similar fates), it is just as safe to assume it "just got away" (in Africa, where it was being tested) as to assume it "got away on purpose". The Reverend Wright is not the first person in this country to dam* it ... usually such emotions are saved for times of utmost distress or frustration or surrender (and who is to say that he does not feel somewhat distressed by a lifetime of watching his people constantly get the boot heel from the rest of our society), but I have heard many sane and otherwise productive people want certain people and even the entire nation to just drop dead. I know I have heard, during my formative childhood, many a white southern Baptist minister dam* individuals (sometimes by name) for stirring up trouble and "getting a little bit too big for their shoes." And as to blaming horrific events upon moral uncertitude, the Reverend Wright is far from being alone in that category.
Quite plainly, I don't think he intended for his words to go much further than outside his congregation. I do not think he was "hitting" for any type of impact, except upon the people who came to his church and shared their pain, frustration, fear and hopes with him for 25 years. Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall of that church ... to actually listen to the things his folks brought to him on a regular basis -- the complaints, the protests, the pleas for help -- that might also have influenced what he said out loud? If you don't think at least some of his congregation brought him stories of hate and disrespect and discrimination and unfair treatment (real or imagined), then you do not have a whole lot of empathy or understanding for people different than you.
As a result ... the "current controversy" is not of the Reverend Wright's doing. It is a controversy of the main stream media's doing. I would suggest done with a certain amount of joy and glee in the ratings and commercial advantages such a controversy would bring to the media.
So what, exactly, is the controversy? That some people -- rightly or wrongly -- feel like they have gotten a raw deal? If they haven't received such a raw deal, then telling them that they are hopeless whiners is not going to ease their feelings much, is it? If they haven't received a raw deal, then giving them a bunch of cr*p now about how "good" they have it (when, in their minds, they don't have it so good, at all) also is not going to ease their bad feelings or make them go away. Neither is talking about it. But at least by starting a conversation, maybe we can get past the "he said/she said" bit and actually start doing something about inequity, social injustice, and racism. Or is the controversy about the fact that at least someone had the nerve to speak up about a perceived problem that you and your ilk don't seem to think exists?
As far as "thinking first" before "spewing" ... I think the Reverend Wright has had a lifetime of first hand experience with racism and discrimination, and he has done a lot of "thinking" about it. Perhaps, being in a position of moral authority and influence, he ought to be a little more cautious ... but white ministers have never been subjected to the same scrutiny he receiving and they are famous for being just as passionate and just as narrow in who it is they dam* or curse without being warned to exercise more caution ... so I am not sure that such caution is necessary. On top of that, I will bet you that caution has been the modus operandi for most of those 25 years.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
You might be thankful that you do not have access to the type of pain that caused the Reverend Wright to speak for millions of black Americans! Remember ... Ronald Reagan stood on soil soaked by the blood of murdered civil rights activists and declared his support of "states rights"! We all know the stinking code he was speaking (nudge nudge wink wink) and the disgusting racial prejudice to whom he was pandering. All the more reason to d*mn his stinking hypocritical soul.
Did he have to make a speech to explain what he meant by those words? Did His Majesty, George III Bush have to explain why he pandered to Bob Jones with a major speech? Where was FauxNews when John McCain supported the display of the Confederate Flag (and if you do not understand the symbolism that the Stars and Bars has for black Americans ... rightly or wrongly ... then you are a certifiably brain dead citizen)? Did HE have to make a major speech explaining why he did that?
And think back to the way that conservative America depicted Martin Luther King in the late sixties and early seventies ... the very same knee-jerk patriots that would crucify Barack Obama because they have now suddenly discovered their "tolerance" of a more "sophisticated" expression of outrage.
When the Reverend Wright says that the US government conspired to spread AIDS among blacks, you say that is "crazy". I already cited the US government's experimentation on Americans with LSD (specifically, on American soldiers held as prisoners for this that and the other in Vietnam) ... which is still unproven and obviously just the rantings of crazed people; but what about the government's conspiracy to use black men as guinea pigs for 40 years to find out what happens when syphilis goes untreated. That, of course, actually happened!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 291
Report backrow
"access to the type of pain that caused the Reverend Wright to speak for millions of black Americans!"
Wright speaks for many white leftists and anti-Americans, probably more than he "speaks for" millions of black Americans" Oh, and his exposure was hardly an "attack on the black church" as he offered...to grab cover. Go visit one sometimes. Pssssssssssssst.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
I am not sure which version of Disney reality colors your rosy glasses, but you most clearly either live in a gated community and purposefully go out of your way to drive through those parts of town or shop anywhere but in those kinds of stores, or you don't ever read the paper or watch the Gotcha News. I am happy that large numbers of Black Americans have quietly and gainfully worked their way to the middle class and beyond ... and wish all could. But the point I am making is that things aren't so rosy, or so optimistic, or so free of chains and shackles and ... whatever advances and advantages he may have leveraged for himself ... the Reverend Wright does, indeed, speak for a significant part of our society. You may turn a blind eye and pretend the Great American Dream is equitably available to all who avail themselves of its promises and work hard to achieve it (suggesting, in the process, a not so subtle warning that those who do not achieve it are all somehow to blame), but there are a few cold hard facts that just somehow don't jibe with this equitable society your imagination has created for you. What follows is not an exhaustive report or study ... none of it was too hard to find, either. While I am sure some of it is outdated and changed, one look around tells me that nothing has changed that significantly.
To wit:
As of 2007, the United States incarcerates over 2.2 million people (more than any other country on the planet, by the way ... a sad commentary on our society, or perhaps on its methods of dealing with poverty, abuse, poor educational system and a whole slew of other social issues). This is seven for every 1000 Americans, and is seven times higher than any other industrialized nation.
Amongst that prison population: • A black man was almost six times more likely to be incarcerated than a white man (1986), and by 2007, black men in their thirties are imprisoned eight times more frequently than a white man in his thirties. • 60% of all black high school dropouts (and underclass if ever there was one) are either serving time, or are now ex-cons. • 45.7% of the national state-prison inmate population was black, while only 33.3% of that population was white (1997). In 2000, blacks represented only slightly more than 12% of the entire population. (Source: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisoners.html) • Today, according to the United States Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm), the lifetime chances for a black man to go to prison are 16.2%, while those for a white man are 2.5% (hispanics, or what it is worth, now have a 9.4% chance of serving time). Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 28% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4.4% of white males.
Income levels (1997): • Average income level, white households in US: $40,577; black households: $25,050 • According to the National Institute of Health, in 1999, the net worth in households headed by older people (50+) had increased by 70% since 1984 (good news); however, the median net worth in households headed by older black people was $13,000, compared with $181,000 for older white householders. • According to the Children's Defense Fund (http://www.childrensdefense.org/keyfacts2.html), 11.1% of all white children live in poverty, while 39.9% of all black children do. • According to Columbia University (http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/reports/longterm.html), 6% of all poor white children live in families with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty threshold, but 30% of poor black children do. • According to the Council n Economic Indicators (http://www.access.gpo.gov/eop/ca/pdfs/ca.pdf), in 1998, 4% white Americans were unemployed, while 10% of black Americans were unemployed. The median weekly income of employed white Americans was $600; that for employed black Americans was only $450
Education • In 1999, 60% of black-Americans had graduated from high school (or more), while this was true for 81% of white Americans. • According to the Council on Economic Indicators (http://www.access.gpo.gov/eop/ca/pdfs/ca.pdf), in 1998, 75% of all white students reported using a computer at school in grades 1-6, while only 55% of all black students did. 30% of all white students in grades 1-6 used a computer at home, while only 9% of all black students did. • 34% of all white Americans report having a Bacherlor's Degree, or higher; 14% of all black-Americans do.
Health • In 1995, the infant mortality rate for all babies born in the U.S. was 7.6 for every 1000 babies. The infant mortality rate for black babies was 15.1 for every 1000 live births (whites=6.3). • Percentage of black teenage births (22.9%); national teenage birth rate = 12.9%
Oh ... and for your information, I do not currently attend a black church, but have in the past. But in case you are interested, you might check out Wovoka.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 211
Report warhater
Civil Liberty groups attack Judeo Christians? That doesn’t make sense since Jews and Christians make up most of the body of lawyers. Reverend Wright is being attack by people like you to the point that his people have placed him in protection and he has canceled further engagements. No telling what a red-haired white faced boy might do after the Reverend points an accusatory finger at the exploitations of the rich Whiteman towards the Negro and said that Jesus was a Blackman. Most all Middle Eastern men were other than white and there is no evidence that Jesus was white. Whitey sure hates to hear certain truths that counter his beliefs to the point of killing those that speak them.
Here watch what the man said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc
You can also peruse the other right wing propaganda YouTube pages concerning Wright being associated with Louis Farrakhan and Hugo Chavez with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation but then again it’s coming from Foxnews which just shows the depth that the right will go to prove nothing. The motto is just throw mud and get them dirty who will give a dam if it’s true or not; is that your motto as well? You better go pray about it Mister Judeo Christian.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
A tad paranoid, are we?
Feeling a bit under the weather (or may under the gun)?
Feel picked upon and perhaps a little discriminated against?
How sad ... but welcome to the club. Now, if you would just take that small (and largely insincere) bit of feeling and try to figure out how a person who feels it every day of his or her life might feel, then perhaps you might have a little bit of understanding for those people in this country -- red, yellow, black or brown -- who can honestly say they are picked upon and discriminated against.
Now, let's set a couple of your misconceptions correct, shall we (not that you will probably understand or agree). First off, the ACLU does not attack anyone. The ACLU defends people whose civil liberties have been violated (or at least those who feel or claim that their civil liberties have been violated). It "attacks" no one. In our judicial system ... where justice is purchased or assumed (unless you are poor, when you assume nothing) ... the only way a person can right a wrong is to file a lawsuit against the perpetrator. Especially when the perpetrator is in the majority. Having a majority not only means you get what you want, it also means that an awful lot of people think that the wrong things they do are "right". So, to correct an injustice perpetrated by the majority requires a lawsuit.
Having a lawsuit filed against oneself gives a feeling of being placed under attack. But, if you dispassionately think about it, this is not true. The wronged person is defending themselves, and their rights, in the only civilized way open to them. Through the courts, that are supposedly neutral and objective (an assumption in itself not always true).
But we'll try this another way, as I have no evidence that you read the responses to your woefully lame posts and take the time to respond I have no reason to think that anything else I say will be a waste of time. Rather than me provide a long list of "for instances" ... why don't you tell me those cases where ACLU liberals and liberal politicians have attacked Judeo-Christian groups and I'll rebut your opinions. Just a warning, though: Don't even try to use examples where people have fought back against Christians who have attempted to impose their beliefs on non-Christians, or against people who do not share certain Christian values ... this is because, like it or not, just as you do not have to subscribe to or obey the dictums coming from the Reverend Wright's pulpit, no one has to follow or acquiesce to your view of the world.
The rest of your rant is senseless fear-mongering. I suppose there may come a time when those who have been held under the boot of oppression for too long will rise up and come to your door demanding retribution ... but I do not think the Reverend Wright has that in mind. Even if you take his so-called worst words to heart, all he wants to do is dam* you and your kind (and you know, I used to hear that sort of thing come out of my minister's mouth when I was a kid in the south ... and those that were to be dam*ed included the likes of the Reverend Wright and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 211
Report warhater
Maybe I’m the one being paranoid because after looking at Wright's speech I would classify it more as a campaign promo for Obama. It seemed directed towards Hillary and her privileges of being white as much condemning the repression that the rich Whiteman has placed on blacks as well as chastising blacks that feel that Obama isn’t black enough. In any case I just wonder how Obama was brought to the fore to run as a Presidential candidate since he was not a shinning political superstar until this election. One has to remember that all these candidates come from the same imperial system that has at its core the interest of rich white men. Knowing that Penny Pritzker the sub prime queen may become his Secretary of the Treasury is not a reassuring sign to me that Obama is anything other than a politician that will say anything to win an election. I am almost convinced that Wright's speech was discussed with and approved by Obama and not just something spontaneous that Obama had to deflect by giving the greatest speech of the twenty first century that has caused many of the undecided to get off the dime and move into his camp.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 437
Report chewy
Obama, first got national recognition during his electrifying speech as the keynote speaker at the Democratic convention during the last election. When he began his campaign, he had no chance of winning...... as did any of the other "no name candidates" whose names, one can't remember already:) Obama pulled away from the pack, because he is incredibly intelligent, and blessed with great amounts of wit and charm. The man can speechify better than anyone I know......American Dems were enamored. He promised to get the country out of Iraq, and the rest is history. Of course, now the bigger issue is the economy, which is tanking. Woe, to the next president who inherits this mess.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
You are correct in describing how he drew attention to himself. You are woefully naive in describing how he "pulled away" from the other "no name" candidates. He pulled away because the corporate-owned media declared who the "serious" candidates were FOR US! They denied equal access on air and in print to the other candidates. This was one of the most amazingly well-qualified and exciting group of candidates in a very long time -- maybe the best EVER! Joe Biden? Chris Dodd? Bill Richardson? Jonathan Edwards? Dennis Kucinich? Give me a break. The mutant republican ninjas who could only argue about who would be toughest against immigrants or stay in Iraq the longest couldn't hold a candle to the integrity, honesty, vision, articulateness, experience or hope that the Dems who got eliminated by MEDIA goons had to offer.
The economy IS a major issue ... brought to us by robber-baron corporate thieves and their Republican suckees. But until the war ends and we use that money to reassert social justice in this country -- and put all corporate thieves in jail, confiscate their belongings to pay back what they stole, and impeach the current cowboys -- we will continue to spin wheels and fall down the rabbit hole of third world status.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 437
Report chewy
You know, it’s darn hard to communicate by typing:) So let me rephrase: the other candidates did not have any cachet with the Democratic electorate. Did not connect with the voters. No one can claim more foreign policy experience than Joe Biden. I like him, but this is the 2nd time he has run and he can’t quite generate any enthusiasm for his candidacy. Charisma is hugely important to an aspiring Presidential candidate. Dodd’s charisma verses Obamas? Whadda ya think? I’m not saying its right; it’s just the way it is. And Bill Richardson , I don’t think he ever got more than 2% approval rating. You would think he would be able to at least tap into the huge Hispanic vote. Nope. And Kucinich has been seeing UFOs lately. I think most of these guys got the credentials. But consider this, it seems to me that there was an unbearable number of televised debates. Everyone got a chance to connect with the electorate .....Hillary and Obama made that connection. Your right, “no name candidate” is a little heavy handed. (Although I did include a smiley face) I’ll take that one back and try harder the next time.
Now as for your other comments: “But until the war ends and we use that money to reassert social justice in this country -- and put all corporate thieves in jail, confiscate their…….” With all due respect, now whose being naïve:)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
No naivete, my friend ...
... as for your other comments: “But until the war ends and we use that money to reassert social justice in this country -- and put all corporate thieves in jail, confiscate their…….” With all due respect, now whose being naïve:)
I call 'em as I see 'em. We have major criminals committing huge crimes against the people of the United States and getting away with it. If someone doesn't call them on it, then what is the point of going through the charade of living in a country of equal rights and equal opportunities, with justice before the law? The logical solution, replete with natural consequences, is that those criminals be held accountable and pay back what they stole. If they are hiding behind laws (that they wrote ... or had their agents write for them), then we change the laws in such a way that they are still accountable (if the Pres can hold up legislation that he claims he needs to fight the so-called war on terror until Telecom companies are granted immunity for the laws they broke, then certainly the people of the United States can be somewhat creative in how they exact justice from criminals).
Will it happen? I doubt it. But unless we say something and at least try to apply pressure on the self-declared gods who represent us, then nothing will ever change.
In regards to the rest of my post, you miss my point: yes, every one of the Dems who originally declared candidacy for nomination was highly qualified (and if you have bought that FauxNews bit of UFO propaganda regarding Kucinich, and that is all that you remember about him, then I am going to have to regard all future comments you make with a great degree of skepticism regarding your insight and ability to see beyond the facade of truth presented by American media). And, of course, given a culture that obsesses on Brittney and OJ (or at least the MSM believes America is fixated on, because that's all that they offer in terms of "news"), "name recognition" and "approval ratings" for things the media fails to report on will be low! The media decided which candidates were "important", and they shaped that early on.
Wake up! Start paying attention ... when you see words like "front-runner" and "most qualified" and "likely winner" and "one of the leaders" attached as descriptors to a candidate's name over a year before the nomination cycle begins, then the media is making choices FOR you. When you see headlines and full column pages devoted to one or two candidates, while all other candidates get the two-line stories in the sub-columns in the inside pages (if ever mentioned at all), then the MSM is making choices for you. When you watch the "unbearable number of televised debates" (and your choice of words there is fully charged with all sorts of opinions and assumptions ... ranging from they were boring, to you don't want to be informed), track how many questions get addressed to the so-called "front-runners" vs. the "second- and third-tier" candidates (another cute phrase used by the MSM to relegate some candidates to the back of the field FOR YOU); use a watch to track how much time each candidate is given.
And most important (only because it is most obvious ... all of the subtle little mind-games those weeners pulled on us add up and are very very important in shaping an election) ... recall that the so-called 'sponsors' of the debates got to pick and choose which candidates would actually appear on the stage ... and they systematically took more and more of them off the stage. In BOTH parties.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 437
Report chewy
You paint with a broad brush stroke. No, I'm wide awake thank you. I am one of the most skeptical persons I know. Give me a little credit will you? I had other problems with Kucinich, UFOs are just a little bit of minutia that seems laughable. And yes, he did admit he saw UFOs during one of the televised debates. Guess you missed that one. And no, I don't watch Fox news hardly at all. I get most of my news from the internet from different sources.
As far as the televise debates: if you seen one, then you seen all of them. It was like watching the same movie over and over again. Each candidate tried to promote himself, and diminish everyone else whether with a lie or an exaggeration. The blogs, and other news sources I read pretty much agreed on that point, and were a better source of info. With the television debates, you were not going to get any more information from the last one, than was given you on the first one.
My you are a contrary fellow, so if you have time to come down from the Mount consider this: America is flawed, agreed. But it allows you to express yourself on this forum, and it allows you a life style better than 80% of the rest of the world. You and yours, are not going hungry tonight are you? America is messy and chaotic, it has large groups of diverse peoples with different cultures trying to live together. And it ain’t EASY! Yes, you can find greed and corruption when you look for it. But you can also find a lot of good. Bush will be gone in less than a year, and maybe things will improve. I hope so. But in the mean time, you seem like a poor, miserable soul in search of Utopia and stuck in the U.S. instead. It appears to me, we can not find a middle ground and life is too short and my time too precious to keep arguing with you over philosophical bull excrement. I spend my time in the real world. Bye, shays.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
There are many good people in this country, doing good things all the time. To want to change the things that do not seem right seems like a pretty honorable way to go. I see two paths to follow, both imminently doable: (1) reform Congress (http://change-congress.org/) by taking money out of the process and not electing candidates to office unless they demonstrate a track record of standing up to the special interests (from both ends of the political spectrum), and (2) put teeth back into anti-trust legislation and revitalize regulatory agencies designed to monitor and actually restrict practices not aligned to the welfare of the majority of Americans. A good place to start is with communications and control of information ... we are better served by having a cacaphony of voices out there -- too many to choose from, so many people become confused -- rather than centralized ownership and control. Control of information (and misinformation) is central to control of minds and then bodies. Yes ... I can speak my mind and I do enjoy a lifestyle better than most of the rest of the people of the world (but at least I am conscious of the fact that my lifestyle advantages are often gained at the expense of a lot of those other people) ... but I do not live in LALA Land, nor do I advocate things than cannot be done (if only because almost everything I advocate has been done already).
You certainly have the right to stop listening or responding to my thoughts. Personally, I think that is your loss, not mine.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 211
Report warhater
I went to wiki since it allows those that are for and against Obama to express their scholarly evidence and opinions. It appears that Obama is a liberal as well as a scholar in that he wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. Anyone that really stands for American principles of democracy would vote for him in a minute it would seem. On face value it’s a no brainer Obama will be the next President because who wouldn’t vote for a guy that stood for the best of American values as well as being a self admitted good poker player. Hell if the guy is a good poker player he ought to be able to figure out everything else.
Here’s the rub. If he stands for what he says he stands for what will remove the people that control the levers of power from influencing his decisions? On the other hand since Hillary has already lived in the Whitehouse she can not be discounted as a player in the levers of power matrix.
When I say levers of power I am speaking of the ruling class that has taken this country to the levels of military violence abroad as well as economic violence domestically that we are now experiencing. Is it possible that a President could maverick from this cabal that now controls America?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidential_campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Books
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 291
Report backrow
"he stands for what will remove the people that control the levers of power..."
Democrats have offered that fancy for a long long time. It is as old as the hills...and you bought it. NO....he aspires to JOIN the people who control the levers....
The only older theme song is "Young People Are Excited By This...Candidate"". All from a old playbook. Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
Wait ... I thought conservatives just went wild about old playbooks.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
There was no "speech" by the Reverend Wright. The video tapes circulated on conservative blogs, picked up and broadcast by ever vigilant FauxNews, and then broadcast non-stop by competing main stream media news stations, were a compilation recorded over many many years. Step one: don't buy into the rovian notion that the Reverend Wright was a non-stop champion of black nationalism (aka ... Clayton's perspective) or a proselytizing born-again rastafarian anti-white nut case. Reverend White is a tired black man who has an audience ... once in a while, he frames the black experience in this country (responding to the whims of his congregation and/or the immediate news to which we all have become knee-jerk mouthpieces ... whatever our individual point of view) in fairly radical terms. Most of the time (95%?) he is a minister.
Barrack Obama's star rose at the last Democratic Convention. Much as Ronnie Ray Gun attracted the attention of the still formative neo-con movement when he praised the efforts of gooney and oppressively scary Barry Goldwater way back when, so did Barrack raise his political capital at the last Demo National Convention. He is articulate. He is not wed (obviously) to too many entrenched interests. For those reasons, he offers a ray of "hope". I much prefer the hope he offers to the stale old cr*p that his chief competitor offers, even if it is "inexperienced" and untested. There is nothing in the mummified McCain campaign that stirs interest or excitement. Vote for McCain = four more years of what we already have (and probably worse).
To me, the "choice" is plain and simple.
I just continue to moan about who made the choice for us. Why in the world does the corporate-owned media have the right to decide who are "serious" candidates and who are not?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 437
Report chewy
Just to let you know that I for one, care dearly for 4000 heros. Many years ago I was in the service too, and I still identify with the Brotherhood and Sisterhood.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 768
Report shays
Some forget that our society is still racially divided, perhaps because they believe the propaganda issued from sterile think tanks to all the folks living in them pretty pink houses (for you and me), all with shuttered windows and doors to the black man with the black cat living in the black neighborhood, because he's got a freeway running through hig front yard and thinking he's got it good [John Mellancamp].
Here's a couple of clues about the gaps in our culture that have not yet been fixed by The Great Society, the end of Jim Crow, Civil Rights legislation, NCLB, and/or Affirmative Action:
• There's the Income Gap (Whites average $20K more in income than do Blacks) • There's the Unemployment Gap (perhaps related to the income gap: Black unemployment rate is 3 times the rate for Whites) • There's the Healthcare Gap (perhaps related to the Unemployment gap, since health insurance and care is essentially provided only through employers) • There's the Homeowner Gap • There's the Poverty Gap • There's the Incarceration Gap (Blacks incarcerated 6 times more frequently than Whites) • There's the Murder Gap (49% of all murder victims are Black)
I suppose if we find a way to fix some of these gaps, we might be able to eliminate racism (and possibly end the so-called Achievement Gap while we're at it)