Obama '08?

Democrats see people as groups, Republicans see people as individuals. This is a generalization, but I think a valid one, everyone is different, but in general, more Republicans think and act independently, than do Democrats or liberals. I will be skewered for this generalization I am sure.

This is totally repugnant as a strategy, but this is what your party does.

I have had it with the liberal nonsense here

There's no question he's referring to Thomas - but if you believe Hill, it's Thomas himself who came up with this term.

Mind you, Wright is an unlikely defender of black womanhood (considering his AIDS fantasies, for instance) but give him credit for being innocent in this particular case.

Foxfyre wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

..............

And looking at the discussion between George and Deist, I am reminded of the clip of Jeremiah Wright referring to Justice Thomas as "Long dong silver" as he expressed contempt for a black man who isn't a flaming liberal. And it is THIS kind of attitude that makes whatever influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama significant for many voters.

Hi Foxfyre - for once, Rev. Wright is innocent: that phrase can be safely attributed to Prof. Anita Hill (also black, in case you don't recall the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas). Prof. Hill was quoting Clarence Thomas verbatim, she said at the time.

Sorry but he isn't innocent. From a transcript of a sermon he preached on January 27, 2008:

Quote:

He set me free to be me. I can't be a colored coon on the faculty at Vanderbilt with no sense of pride. And I can't be a Supreme Court judge called long dong silver who disrespects black women and himself. I got to be me. I can't be a lyin' five-star general who leads an entire nation into war on a lie. And I can't be a sec of state who goes shopping on Broadway while folks are drowning in New Orleans--I got to be me. LINK

Is there any question in your mind to whom he is referring here? Would anybody not understand what he is saying here? If you are black and conservative you're scum. He didn't coin the phrase but he doesn't have any problem applying it to a sitting Supreme Court justice.

Not true. And I'm sure you're not suggesting that Rev Wright represents the entire black community are you?

What about Colin Powell? A very decent man. Well respected by members of both parties.

What about black evangelicals? They are satistically more conservative than white evangelicals on issues such as abortion etc.

Your claim is unsupported.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Okie - Pick a side of your mouth to speak out of. Either Democrats vote based on politics or skin color.

They vote based on politics, but a vote against a minority by a Republican is based on prejudice, according to them. It is the Democrats that want it both ways. That was the point of my comments, as explained, perhaps you need to read better.

Quote:

I'm also with dys, you comment about skin tone is pretty offensive.

You are only portraying your own hangups and desire to paint your opposition as racists, which makes you pathetic, Diest. There is nothing here about skin tone, beyond skin tone, get over it. Everybody is born with a skin tone. If you want to make something out of it, I will tell you what I told Dyslexia, to get lost, and I mean it. I have had it with the liberal nonsense here - you spend half your time trying to paint your political opposition as racists or something, which leads me to conclude you must think that way, and you must have alot of racist hangups yourself. This clearly demonstrates the very point I just made in the above paragraph.

Would anybody not understand what he is saying here? If you are black and conservative you're scum.

Foxfyre wrote:

Would anybody not understand what he is saying here? If you are black and conservative you're scum.

This is what I was addressing Fox. I know you didn't bring up Powell or black evangelicals. I did. I did so to show that this statement is false.

Again, you're not suggesting that Wright speaks for the entire black community are you?

T
K
O

okie wrote:

Diest, Clarence Thomas is a good example. When he was going through the confirmation process, it was a very ugly, very ugly process, and he was accused of lots of things, one being he was an Uncle Tom for the simple fact that he was standing as an individual not as a black person per se. Remember, he wasn't black enough according to many black folks, and some of the people that skewered him the worst were of the black community. Republicans never accused Democrats of opposing the man because he was black. And the truth is it was all about politics.

In contrast, here we have Obama running as a black person, and those that don't vote for him have been accused of racism, and count on it - we will hear lots more about it. At the beginning, some black leaders claimed or debated whether he was "black enough," and the meaning of that could be debated as a subject in and of itself, but in order to gain the support of many in the black community, he had to prove he was "black," which apparently involves a whole lot more than skin color. Again, it is about politics, plain and simple, not color of skin.

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama. On a serious note, Clarence Thomas has turned out to be one fine justice. I have heard him speak, and he speaks common sense, I like and respect the man a great deal, especially knowing what he has gone through to be an honorable individual to buck the poison thrown at him.

All of this is so plain as day, Democrats see people as groups, Republicans see people as individuals. This is a generalization, but I think a valid one, everyone is different, but in general, more Republicans think and act independently, than do Democrats or liberals. I will be skewered for this generalization I am sure.

Okie - Pick a side of your mouth to speak out of. Either Democrats vote based on politics or skin color.

I'm also with dys, you comment about skin tone is pretty offensive.

okie wrote:

Many people pass it off as okay, and the theory has even been put forth that anyone belonging to a minority cannot qualify as being a racist, but the fallacy of that theory should be obviously flawed.

1) I'd love for you to find a single post from any individual suggesting this.
2) This is not a part of democratic or liberal politics. Therefore irrelevant.

You're not just talking out of both sides of your mouth, you're talking out of your a$$. The theory is obviously flawed, but it just your strawman to frame Obama supporters in a negative way without ever having to identify a single person who subscribes to such a theory.

T
K
O

Joe Feagin and Hernan Vera write:
"Racism is more than a matter of individual prejudice and scattered episodes of discrimination. There is no black (or other minority) racism because there is no centuries-old system of racial subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges, and benefits of this society. Minority racism would require not only a widely accepted racist ideology directed at whites, but also the power to systematically exclude whites from opportunities and rewards in major economic, cultural, and political institutions."

"I have another point though. Because when I was in college, I studied sociology. And what we learned is that racism is an institutional thing. It's not like, it's something that goes from the top down. In other words it's not something- if somebody is- you can't be racist if you're in the oppressed minority. It goes the other direction. The majority is racist to the oppressed minority."

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Hagee, an influential Texas televangelist who endorsed John McCain, apologized to Catholics Tuesday for his stinging criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and for having "emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews."
Hagee's support for McCain has drawn cries of outrage from some Catholic leaders who have called on McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. The likely Republican nominee has said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments, but did not reject his support.

In a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."

Donohue, one of Hagee's sharpest critics, said he accepted the apology and planned to meet with Hagee Thursday in New York.

"I got what I wanted," Donohue said in an interview. "He's seen the light, as they like to say. So for me it's over."

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that "for political purposes, Senator Obama's opponents on the right have distorted and reframed" his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."

The problem is, Barack Obama did say he'd meet with Iran unconditionally, in front of a lot of people, at the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate last July.

He was specifically and directly asked if he would meet with the leader of Iran (and the leaders of several other "so-called rogue states") without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency, and his answer was, "I would."

I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Would anybody not understand what he is saying here? If you are black and conservative you're scum.

This is what I was addressing Fox. I know you didn't bring up Powell or black evangelicals. I did. I did so to show that this statement is false.

Again, you're not suggesting that Wright speaks for the entire black community are you?

T
K
O

So far he has yet to commend or compliment or speak well of ANY black conservative either in his sermons or in speeches or when being interviewed on television. Because of that and reinforced when he specifically alluded to four specific prominent black conservatives in that paragraph, to me the message is clear that he considers black conservatives to be scum.

That has nothing to do with anybody speaking for the entire black community. Focus dear. You can do it if you really try.

Obama seems to be backtracking, and he apparently forgot that his initial comments were carried on national television...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_Unconditional_Position_-_Update-_Video_Added

Quote:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that "for political purposes, Senator Obama's opponents on the right have distorted and reframed" his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."

Quote:

The problem is, Barack Obama did say he'd meet with Iran unconditionally, in front of a lot of people, at the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate last July.

He was specifically and directly asked if he would meet with the leader of Iran (and the leaders of several other "so-called rogue states") without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency, and his answer was, "I would."

So why is he changing his mind now?
What has happened to cause him to backtrack like that?

Semantics, mostly. "No preconditions" vs. "with preparation."

Preconditions: Iran must do something to earn the privilege of having talks with the American president. Take their nuclear capability down a notch or something, I dunno.

Preparation: Both sides agree to an agenda, what will be talked about, where they'll talk, how long it will be, that sort of thing.

That's off the top of my head, might be wrong. That's the impression I have though.

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

Diest, Clarence Thomas is a good example. When he was going through the confirmation process, it was a very ugly, very ugly process, and he was accused of lots of things, one being he was an Uncle Tom for the simple fact that he was standing as an individual not as a black person per se. Remember, he wasn't black enough according to many black folks, and some of the people that skewered him the worst were of the black community. Republicans never accused Democrats of opposing the man because he was black. And the truth is it was all about politics.

In contrast, here we have Obama running as a black person, and those that don't vote for him have been accused of racism, and count on it - we will hear lots more about it. At the beginning, some black leaders claimed or debated whether he was "black enough," and the meaning of that could be debated as a subject in and of itself, but in order to gain the support of many in the black community, he had to prove he was "black," which apparently involves a whole lot more than skin color. Again, it is about politics, plain and simple, not color of skin.

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama. On a serious note, Clarence Thomas has turned out to be one fine justice. I have heard him speak, and he speaks common sense, I like and respect the man a great deal, especially knowing what he has gone through to be an honorable individual to buck the poison thrown at him.

All of this is so plain as day, Democrats see people as groups, Republicans see people as individuals. This is a generalization, but I think a valid one, everyone is different, but in general, more Republicans think and act independently, than do Democrats or liberals. I will be skewered for this generalization I am sure.

Okie - Pick a side of your mouth to speak out of. Either Democrats vote based on politics or skin color.

I'm also with dys, you comment about skin tone is pretty offensive.

okie wrote:

Many people pass it off as okay, and the theory has even been put forth that anyone belonging to a minority cannot qualify as being a racist, but the fallacy of that theory should be obviously flawed.

1) I'd love for you to find a single post from any individual suggesting this.
2) This is not a part of democratic or liberal politics. Therefore irrelevant.

You're not just talking out of both sides of your mouth, you're talking out of your a$$. The theory is obviously flawed, but it just your strawman to frame Obama supporters in a negative way without ever having to identify a single person who subscribes to such a theory.

T
K
O

Quote:

Joe Feagin and Hernan Vera write:
"Racism is more than a matter of individual prejudice and scattered episodes of discrimination. There is no black (or other minority) racism because there is no centuries-old system of racial subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges, and benefits of this society. Minority racism would require not only a widely accepted racist ideology directed at whites, but also the power to systematically exclude whites from opportunities and rewards in major economic, cultural, and political institutions."

On the march 24, 2008 broadcast of "the View", Joy Behar said this...

Quote:

"I have another point though. Because when I was in college, I studied sociology. And what we learned is that racism is an institutional thing. It's not like, it's something that goes from the top down. In other words it's not something- if somebody is- you can't be racist if you're in the oppressed minority. It goes the other direction. The majority is racist to the oppressed minority."

So I have just given you 2 examples of people saying that minorities cant be racist.

So Hillary wins W. VA (big surprise) but what I want to know is how many people voted for John Edwards.