 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bobert Date: 03 Apr 08 - 09:23 PM Exactly, Genie... These are all nuggets that have been tested before control groups before put out for public consumption... The Rev. Wright deal was exactly that.... Take 3 minutes outta man's life and try to define him by thoes three minutes... Hey, I understand it if those three minutes are Lee Harvey Oswald's 3 minutes in Texas, or James Earl Ray's 3 minutes in Memphis but to try to define Rev. Wright by reducing thousands of hours of work into three losy minutes is about a hypocrital as there is... Heck, I'd hate to have a nation judge me by my most radical 3 minuites... Yeah, okay, back in the 60's I was workin' as a community organizer for the local CAP program and the City of Richmond was getting ready to cut funding for the program so I got up before the the City Council with a packed and loud audience and went into a rant about raising taxes and "puttin' barbed wire around the poor neighborhoods, just like in Nazi Germnany, then white folks wouldn't have to worry about them niggas"... Yeah, the black folks in the audience, most who I knew well, loved what I said and I got alot of "Amen, brothers" but if I were to run for political office and the tape of that speech were to come into the hands of my opponent I would be toast!!! Yeah, we gotta be real carefull when we try to generalize... When we take a man's most radical and angry moments and try to define his entire life by them... All people who try to make things better go thru hard times... Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple... If there had been 30 second clips of that running 24/7 on CNN or Fox then maybe we wouldn't have a New Testament today... I mean, lets get real here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Genie Date: 03 Apr 08 - 08:55 PM What some people read into a statement isn't necessarily "implied." : ) What's important here is not only what Tavis Smiley (or anyone else) has said, in toto, it's more what they've said that gets echoed over and over in the mainstream media (including popular talk shows). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 03 Apr 08 - 08:41 PM It appeared to me you presumed Smiley was being unfair to Obama, as your first post implied. Lesser of two evil voting: which one is more palatable, shit on a shingle, or shit on a shingle with a sauerkraut sauce? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Genie Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:38 PM "1. Because a person is critical of one particular candidate means only that, nothing else." Ever hear the saying "Silence implies consent?" If I very vocally criticize only one candidate, it's very likely to be construed by many others as implying I have less to criticize about their opponents. "2. Whom the person being critical supports is no one's business but [their] own " - It is, until one opens one's mouth and blabs it. : D "3. It is entirely possible for people to be critical of the candidate they ultimately end up voting for, when the system is rigged to force "lesser of two evils" voting." This is true. But research also shows that negative campaigning tends to suppress voter turnout. YOU may lambast candidate X and then 'hold your nose and vote for her/him," but your putting that down in public may persuade others not to vote for her/him or just not to vote. "So, I don't know who Tavis Smiley is going to vote for, but it is none of my damn business." We're not talking about whom he's going to vote for, we're talking about what he says from his bully pulpit and how it may influence the electorate. "As a host of a public affairs program on PBS, I would expect nothing less than him examining the candidates critically--that is his job." If he does it fairly and even-handedly, I'd say, yes, that is, indeed, his job. Finally, no, I don't know what else he has or hasn't said about the candidates. Nor did I presume I did. : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,GUEST Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:07 PM Genie, a couple of things to remember. 1. Because a person is critical of one particular candidate means only that, nothing else. 2. Whom the person being critical supports is no one's business but there own--we have secret balloting in the US for VERY good reasons, and we are witnessing it in this election. 3. It is entirely possible for people to be critical of the candidate they ultimately end up voting for, when the system is rigged to force "lesser of two evils" voting. So, I don't know who Tavis Smiley is going to vote for, but it is none of my damn business. As a host of a public affairs program on PBS, I would expect nothing less than him examining the candidates critically--that is his job. Finally, do you know for a fact that he hasn't made critical observations of the other candidates when doing public speaking gigs, including the one quoted in the opening post of this thread? Maybe you shouldn't presume so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bobert Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:30 PM I couldn't agree more with GG's opinion that it is time to revamp the constitution... It is so outdated that even with activit Supreme Courts the governemnt is getting less and less democratic... Take, fir instance the population of Utah and compare it to that of California... Both have 2 senators yet when you look at the fairness in representation 1 Utahian = 77 Califonians... This is just one example where things donm't work... Jefferson, in his writings, made it clear that he thought that the document was flexible enough so that it could be changed easily to keep it modern... That really hasn't happened... It isn't modern... It does not even have a provison that states that women are equal to men and should therefore be conpenstaed equally for equal work... It has to say purdy much just that because the Supremes couldn't give a tinker's fam about equal pay for women... That is a fact... But look at how difficult, because of interest groups, money and PR, it is just to get asn ammendment that specifically says that women should have equal rights... Nevermind... Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Genie Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:18 AM Guest, I'm not suggesting that criticising Obama implies support for McCain, but I'd venture to say a lot of the public could see it that way. If there are 3 main candidates left, 2 within the Democratic Party, and Smiley publicly criticizes ONLY Obama, don't you think a lot of those who hear that criticism might think his silence about the other two means either that he'd prefer Clinton to be the Democratic nominee or even that he thinks more of McCain? I just hope Smiley aims his attacks as much at McCain as he does at Obama - and at Clinton too, unless he actually has no criticizm of her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:33 PM "'...who WAS a good president" my answer is: we don't have them in this country.'" We have had good presidents in this country. We just haven't had one since the two parties became so entrenched and preoccupied with power that they don't care about the people anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM Why is it that so many people refuse to understand you can be unhappy with Obama without being FOR Clinton, or accused of being racist? BOTH candidates suck, IMO. Yet, any little criticism of Obama and the Obamamaniacs start screaming you are in the Clinton camp, or they pull the race card out. Obama is a damn disappointing candidate, regardless of his skin color and cultural background. Or in the parlance of a past election "He is no Jack Kennedy". Who also sucked as a president, I might add. And in case anyone is wondering "well then, who WAS a good president" my answer is: we don't have them in this country. We need to change the face of the presidency, and return to a true balance of power among the three constitutional branches of government. In fact, IMO, it is time to revamp the constitution itself, modernize it for our needs today. One of the things I think is important is to have a figure head as president, as they have in Ireland, for instance. Then put the true power in the legislature, and the Speaker position. There have been times in the past when a strong Speaker resulted in some of the best governance. But I digress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Genie Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM I kind of agree with Smiley's criticisms - from an idealist point of view. And I hope Obama will eventually use his own 'pulpit' to help rehabilitate the distorted image of Rev. Jeremiah Wright brought to the public by Faux Noise (Hannity, especially) and echoed mindlessly by the other "mainstream media." But Obama has to win a lot more than "the black vote" to win the Presidency. He can't be seen as "the candidate" of any one sub-group if he wants to be elected, much less if he wants to bring about the healing and unification that his candidacy is about. My question for Smiley and his follwers is" "If you're disappointed in Obama over how he responded to 'Wrightgate," does that mean you're throwing your support to Clinton? Has she stood up for Rev. Wright and pointed out the important truths his 'outrageous' sermons were addressing? Is she representing the views and needs of "black Americans" as well as Obama does? I sure hope you're not suggesting McCain is better." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:12 PM No Donuel, it will bite YOU in the behind. I'm too far behind to be bit there, apparently. It all fair game, in love, war, politics, and behind biting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Donuel Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM "I wouldn't say the remarks were taken out of context at all." Of course 'you' wouldn't Fair game? Only a cretin or a paid political hack would emply such a preposterous notion. IF it were a fair game media wise then the fact that McCain's pastor who openly endorses him, said that the Pope is THE ANTICHRIST... or you would hear of the obscene racist remark by Buchanon last week.. it was so inflamatory and racist I will not repeat it. but YOU may repeat all the fair game repeatitions (over 1,000 TV hours worth, of 3 remarks of Reverend Wright and paint him as the boogyman. At best this whole issue is a weak gotcha game that has already lost its national flavor. Anyway guest you are a week behind already! You may have a weak behind for all I know, get up off the couch and get with this week's issues. This week's talking point is the repetition that McCain has a 50-50 chance of winning the election. This talking point is based on no polls and no evidence and is designed like most right wing chants to create a mythical truth in the minds of ditto heads. Meanwhile McCain the candidate is now re-vamping the "I am against hypocrisy" speech. this stuff always has a way of coming back to bite you in the behind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:49 PM I wouldn't say the remarks were taken out of context at all. However, I would say that most Americans of any race outside African American culture, that people are clueless about the contexts, both cultural and political, that Wright and Trinity reside in. Big difference. There is also some sort of bullshit about how someone had to "dig deep" to find the video, when in reality, it was posted for sale on the internet by the church itself, putting it squarely in the domain of "public information". While the culture is definintely African American at Trinity, the politics is also black nationalist, and it is likely at least some portion of the church's talented tenth were "save the race" sorts. Why else was Farrakhn man of the year or whatever, in the 2007 year end issue of the church's magazine? That's the political context of the church community, and it is fair game in this election, the same way any candidate's connections to their church is, especially when the church they choose to belong to is perceived as controversial on politics, while being conservative, or at least conventional in the African American community standard sense, on religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Donuel Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:33 PM Tavis was great on the Bill Mahre Show this week. It was explained to me today that the 3 Wright quotes taken out of context were from 3 seperate sermons in which each sermon was presented in the traditional 3 part format of the life, the cruxifiction and the resuurection. Each out of context quote was from the cruxifiction segment of the sermon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Ebbie Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:24 PM BB, one of my major concerns is that the "executive powers" that Bush has seized and promulgated will still be in place when the next president takes office. Personally I would like the new president disown and discard such notions. I am not at all sure that she or he will; it is supremely tempting to retain power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Obama Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM In this day and age, Obama is accountable to the voters for his choice of pastor and church. People can moan and groan all they want about that fact, but it won't change a thing. You can't pick your family (nice white racist grandma), but you can pick your black nationalist pastor with strong separatist tendencies. And if you choose not to distance yourself from that choice before you choose to run for president of the US, well...you bloody well get what you deserve. Whining that his remarks were "taken out of context" and don't reflect all the good the man is done is all true. But it won't change a thing in the general election. If a blow job is fair game, so is this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wright Stuff From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:18 PM Oh, I like catfish. I just know for a fack they swim abit higher than the muckrakers. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wright Stuff From: Rapparee Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM Don't you go badmouthin' catfish like that, Amos! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wright Stuff From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:10 PM My view is that his nature, and the nature of the things he said, was wilfully distorted by careful omissions of context, and by distortive clip-editing. I consider this an act of defamation by whoever ordered it. I do not believe it was Hillary's camp; I think it was Hannity's. But whoever did it was a mudslinger of the lowest order. Below catfish. A |
|
Subject: BS: Wright Stuff From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:03 PM an interesting article on Wright from the LA Times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Bobert Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM Sorry, Don, but GG doesn't see his or herself in what either you or I have observed... I said the same thing and got the potted plant treatment... Not even "end of discussion" but "no discussion"... Normal... ..."typical white person" response (joke, kinda...) B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Charley Noble Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Don Firth Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM If framed in a manner that's far less loaded, there is room for reasonable discussion of all of the candidates here. When you start a thread on the basis of a loaded premise, that's when you're going to get negative responses. Elementary, by dear GiGi. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM So, we no talk race no more, 'kay? We only talk Obama sunshine. Yes we can. This is our time. Change we can believe in. Hillary is the devil. Life is a bitch. Don't vote for one. Hillary will eat your kids. Hillary Iron My Shirt. I Love America so I hate Hillary. (All of the above mottos on merch available at Cafe Press) It is clear as day, there is room for positive opinions about only one candidate in this forum! And no, I'm not talkin' McCain! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:25 AM "Evidently you are working in a school where you can discuss these issues every day, or at least monitor discussion among your colleagues. That experience does add credibility to your commentary, but not necessarily clarity." Yes, we do frequently have these "staff lounge" discussions. Believe me, there is no more clarity there, than here. The issues surrounding race in the US are as clear as mud. Which is why the electorate is feeling a lot like we are trying to tread quicksand. Tavis Smiley's remarks are pretty atypical in terms of MSM. However, his sentiments as expressed above, in the context of African American audiences, is pretty typical of what the Boston Globe reporter above refers to when he says: "Wright was never a Pollyanna about race relations. He railed against white attitudes toward African-Americans and preached self-sufficiency to his black worshipers. Phrases like "God damn America," those who know Wright say, reflected not a fierce anti-Americanism but a deserved, if provocative, indictment of a country that had been hostile to blacks. "This is what I would call the traditional black critique of America, that basically America is flawed on race," said Harwood McClerking, a specialist on race and politics at Ohio State University. "That's a contested premise." The point I'm trying to make is quite subtle and complex. On the one hand, Christian black nationalism and it's ideological activist offshoots in the Afrocentric churches of the north that are of the "self-segregating on Sundays" variety to which Obama refers in his speech, aren't the same cultural community of African Americans as conservative, largely unassimilated Southern Baptist church communities, either in the north or the south. While many of the former are operating in an integrated world most of their work week, the latter often aren't, and continue to live, work, and send their children to schools in mostly segregated circumstances. So when Harwood McClerking states that there is a "traditional" black critique on race, he is exactly right. He is also largely defining the former African American community, not the latter. McClerking is also correct in stating that the "traditional" black critique is a contested one within those diverse African American communities. And that isn't even counting the secular African American communities that have put a substantial distance between themselves and ANY of the Christian based, church dominated cultural communities. This includes many involved in the intellectual communities of African Americans, the African American LGBT community, many African American feminists, many in the African American/mixed race or bi-racial communities whose cultural identity isn't static & identified exclusively within "traditional" African American cultural identities, etc. Afrocentrism and black nationalism--whether of the Muslim or Christian sort, is pretty passe among most African Americans under age 30, BTW. They seem themselves as post-black nationalist, especially the under 30 African American feminists and LGBT communities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Charley Noble Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM Gigi- I'm not finding any additional clarity in your remarks in this thread, just an acknowledgment that the issues in this campaign are deeply rooted and complex. Evidently you are working in a school where you can discuss these issues every day, or at least monitor discussion among your colleagues. That experience does add credibility to your commentary, but not necessarily clarity. I still conclude that Obama did a whole lot better with his speech than anyone expected him to, including yourself as you intially acknowledged. The overall positive impression for others may not be sustained, but that will only happen if Obama is unable to retain the initiative in defining his campaign. That's his job. He will have to respond (hopefully briefly and sharply) to orchestrated criticism from the Republican right wing. He will also have to respond to more credible criticism too, if it's raised. I'm not convinced that Tavis Smiley's remarks meets that threshold. I think his concerns were directly addressed in Obama's speech. You are trying to provoke more discussion with this thread. Good luck but I have little interest in rehashing this topic anymore. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 22 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM Above should read: "But I think it is clear as to WHO has made the most gains..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 22 Mar 08 - 09:28 AM lox, I would say that Richardson's endorsement of Obama is also about race too--and backlash against white domination of the political process in this country. And the way that dynamic will be viewed by the majority of voters in the general election? I don't really know. But I think it is clear as to has made the most gains in this country--and it doesn't involve women of any color. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bobert Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:55 AM If you want this discussion then leave out the "code" words, GG... That's the part you still don't get... "Wrightgate" is dripping with code... I mean, dripping... That's why few people are posting to this thread... They just don't see it as a discussion... Sure, you can point to my "McCain; Liar or Ignorant" thread and say that title ain't too enticing... It wasn't intended to be... It was more a mini-bobert-rant... I never expected a seriouis discussion about McCain to come from it... That's why I loaded up the title... You, on the other hand say that you want folks to stop in here and have an honest discussion after you have purdy much telegraphed your final answer with a codified thread title... Hey, it's okay to dislike Obama... Really... This ain't Russia... You can even have a civil discussion about race while still disliking Obama... Maybe yoi just need to change the title of the tread or better yet, starty another one that is more inviting to civil discourse... Just MO, of course... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:05 AM When I said I had come to "appreciate" Tavis Smiley's opinion, that he felt Obama's speech had thrown Wright & Trinity under the bus, I didn't mean I agreed with that opinion. But that in the past week, while listening to some of my conservative, non-black nationalist, Baptist church going, middle class African American colleagues, I heard them express an opinion virtually identical to that of Tavis Smiley. I came to appreciate *their* perspective as African Americans on this supposedly historic speech. Again, these are not ignorant black folks, living in poverty. These are people as highly educated as Obama's most committed core supporters--white liberals with high incomes & high levels of education. However, I am not suggesting that they would vote for McCain over Obama, because they won't. So don't worry Obama supporters. Obama didn't lose their vote, because he couldn't. He absolutely cannot lose the African American vote, because that voting block, given the choice in November, will still go overwhelming to Obama. Not necessarily as a vote for him personally, but as a for any African American over the white candidate. For some, their rationale will be the historic thing, for others who love Obama, it will be because they feel he is the best candidate, and for yet others, it will be a vote to stick it to whitey. The African American community is as diverse as any other in the nation. I see few here are truly interested in having that difficult discussion about the state of race in America, which is what I figured. What the Obamamaniacs are interested in is shouting down anyone who isn't supporting Obama. I think catspaw pretty much has the pulse of the Midwest--at least his part of the Midwest. Minnesota went overwhelmingly for Obama, and since the party leadership in this state has already declared allegiance to him--unprecedented this early in the race in our state, where the leadership doesn't endorse until the candidate is clear--the majority of the 1/3 of the voters in MN who are independent, according to the most recent polls here, are leaning toward McCain. I tried to begin this thread as one that was about race, but not the election. I guess it just isn't possible to have that conversation separate from Obama here at this time. So be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Mar 08 - 06:36 PM Guest guest, The problem is as you have rightly pointed out. that to talk about race relations you need to talk about more than just black and white. But if you're going to talk you need to start somewhere. But for the record, Obama didn't bring it up, he just ran for president. If he'd been Latino, the issue would have been about latino race relations. By him running for president, the whole issue has been stirred up. Why? ... He didn't bring it up specifically ... It came up because it is still a big enough issue that if a black man has the audacity to run for president it will inspire a race controversy. And cos he's black, people are likely to talk about ... well .. erm ... black issues in politics before they get to other races. We're only talking about it because he's black, not because he has a civil rights agenda. That seems pretty clear too. Just to rephrase, The reason we're talking about black racial status on the political and social ladder in the context of this election isn't because it is a platform ticket for any of the candidates, it's because one of the candidates is black. See the difference? So you may as well ask "why doesn't he have more hispanic blood if he wants to be truly representative?" I don't know if I can make that point ant clearer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM No, GG... I didn't come here to throw your partisan rant against PObama off track just to point out that the "Gate" portion is over the top here... This isn't a "gate" topic... If you want a gate topic then, in general, crimes or suspected crimes have to have been committed... I mean, I could start a thred entitled GG-Gate but that woudl be stupid... No, all along here you have uesed coded and buzz words that Ralph Nadar wouldn't even find civil... You do hate Obama... You can hide behind any rationale that you can come up with but what you write here is hate-filled... As for me hatin' folks??? Nah... I hate their policies and actions but I am a firm believer in hate the sin, not the sinner... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Donuel Date: 21 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM The racism I encounter that comes from blacks I try to excuse as a result of lifetimes of abuse. We all know if you starve and punish a dog it will become vicious. Since the Jewish holocaust there is now a jewish militant faction that is angry and armed to the teeth with nukes. The anger is understandable in the music. The fear and resentment is understandable among the uneducated segment of the black culture but it is not Black culture. Some call it the Malcome X militant faction. But whatever you call it, it is not the bulk of black American culture. I may be way off but I believe the median attitude of the black American is in line with a modern day Denzel Washington or the latter day Ossie Davis. So when I encounter racism by blacks I tend to excuse it , right or wrong, and feel like their struggle isn't mine. If I can I pass along that you'll get more compliments with honey than vineger...even basaltic vinegar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bill D Date: 21 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM Late getting here, but: "I came to appreciate what Tavis is saying above. Which, in a nutshell, is "thanks for throwing Wright under the bus, in order to reassure your white liberal money base." What a stupid, cynical thing for EITHER Tavis or anyone else to say! Wright was way off base in his harangues and needed someone to say so! I can barely watch Smiley, for as near as I can tell, in spite of his intelligence and pretense at covering general issues, his hobby is 'being black'. He reminds me of a cleverer Al Sharpton, condemning anything which could be made to sound like criticism of any black individual or movement. Yes, I know I'll take heat for this, but Obama came nowhere NEAR "throwing Wright under the bus". He praised the good and rebuked the bad aspects of his old pastor. I am pretty tired of the attitude that some topics are off P.C. limits and that ANY person can say the kinds of things Wright said without being called on it. I respect Obama even more for having the courage to be honest about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 04:05 PM Bruce, if you honestly believe that a Barack Obama administration would exercise such invasions, on such grounds, I have to say you are coming from a place of unpleasant dreams indeed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM And if they do, the fault will lie with Bush. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 03:16 PM But guess what- I do not agree with you. When the next administration decides it is ok to monitor everyone's computer usage ( after all, some may be pedophiles) or phone calls ( in case they use the N***** word. Have to keep everyone right-thinking and double-plus-good.) it will be too late to express these concerns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM The tools put in place? The friggin' piece of shit had no respect for the office itself! Geeziz......What a load of crap! Even Nixon had more respect with regards to the responsibility and honor of the Executive Branch. IF someone abuses these "tools" in the future (and I have a hard time believing anyone could rape the few freedoms Americans had before his "tools" any worse than Dubya himself) it will be the fault of Bush. History will lay this dishonor at his chin.......I say chin because he will already be well up past his ass and his neck in dishonor by then. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM Amos, "For a supporter of someone who has extravagantly and preemptorily thrown the check-and-balance of popwer out the window in order to pursue his piss-poor vision, Bruce, I am not sure what your apprehensions are based on." I fear the use of those tools put in place by the Bush administration and used mostly in a reasonable manner by Democrats with a lock on both houses and the White House. THEY do not have the "burden" of even showing that they are working for the good of the country- they will do what they like regardless of public opinion. If you think Bush was bad, just wait until a Democrat has the power! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:33 PM Yet many here wish for that temporary dictatorship, so that they might iimplement their own "arrogance and misuse of power." I greatly fear that we will be looking back at the last 8 years as "the good old days" when things were so much better.... For a supporter of someone who has extravagantly and preemptorily thrown the check-and-balance of popwer out the window in order to pursue his piss-poor vision, Bruce, I am not sure what your apprehensions are based on. But, whatever they are based on, they are your own, and I won't try to gainsay them. As for throwing Wright under the bus, it seems to me Obama was assiduously clear that: 1. HE rejected extreme statements based on a locked-in anger that would not move forward toward betterment, including those made by Wright; 2. He would not under any circumstances disown Mr Wright or allow his respect for him to be alloyed because of those particular statements, in light of the overall value the man had. So wherein is he throwing Wright under the bus? Because he refuses to take on the mantle of endless anger and fulmination? That is idiocy; his only chance to make thigns better is NOT to join that angry but unchanging crowd. He knows that, and so do most of his listeners, and so should those who sympathize with Wright's anger, as do I. The resolution of anger of this kind is not to roll in it like a beaten dog in the trash, but to cublimate it inot strong forward change. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM The things Ron Paul said in the Republican debates were absolutely correct. He had nothing to apologize for...not to Giuliani, not to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM I keep preaching revolution Hawk and so far I've only hooked you but that's progress. The system does not need a few improvements......It needs to be scrapped and replaced. As far as this subject goes, I don't care what anyone thinks of Smiley or Janet or me either for that matter, but I'm going to repost what I posted yesterday regarding the speech and the Wright affair....... I'm not real sure that he accomplished much with the broadbase American public that Nixon was so fond of, the infamous "Silent Majority." There are a number of news stories stating that same general idea.........But on a personal level I have listened to five conversations in the past couple of days out here in the great unwashed midwest who were left unimpressed. It was a great speech but its a Catch-22 situation.........The same folks who would demand throwing Wright under the bus would be the first to say he tramped over people to get ahead. Not an easy one there of course but it will hurt more against McCain then Clinton, as the GOP will happily feast on this one through til November. In this piss poor system we have, yeah, I favor Obama but why don't we all go out for a day and take some personal polls in diners and malls and barber shops and gyms or places where the "just plain old Americans" congregate and see where things are. Right now, I agree with the polls as the word on the street here in ignorant ass old Ohio seems to be McCain-Clinton-Obama in that order. November though is a long way off. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM Yet many here wish for that temporary dictatorship, so that they might iimplement their own "arrogance and misuse of power." I greatly fear that we will be looking back at the last 8 years as "the good old days" when things were so much better.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:55 PM You're right, BB. It's not a good thing at all when only one party controls the whole show. The same applies in Canada. The best governments we've ever had here, in my opinion, were our minority governments...the reason being, we have a multi-party system, so in our system a minority government means that the ruling party must reach accomodations with at least one other sitting party in order have a working majority to pass any particular piece of legislation. That results in more than one "voice", so to speak, having a real say in the process...and that results in better legislation and less corruption of the political process by special interest groups. A single party-dominated government is effectively a temporary dictatorship of that one viewpoint over all others. That does not lead to good governance, it leads to arrogance and misuse of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM LH I can live with that. The problem is going to be living with what happens in November. Look at what happens whenever ONE party controls the White house AND both the Senate and House- It is never a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:41 PM Yes, BB, it's a continual and festering problem on both sides of the aisle. No doubt about it. It's one of the reasons I would prefer to see political parties themselves go the way of the dinosaurs, and instead have a system where individuals of NO party affiliation whatsoever run for office...with no party machine whatsoever behind them. Nothing behind them but their own unique ideas and their own character. And funding? Simple. Fund all the candidates equally from a public fund. Have them all given equal air time to express their views. Have a relatively short campaign...6 weeks? 2 months? Vote. Form a non-partisan government from the results...not a government permanently divided into 2 opposing and self-interested power blocs who live to trash one another, but a government of many independent individuals who decide things by open non-partisan debate and discussion, followed by a vote. It's just a dream, of course. I know it's not going to happen in the system we have now. They would never allow such a thing to happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM As LH said, "There are a lot of people who would rather continue to see things in a stark division of "good vs evil"...."us and them"...because they've become addicted to feeling angry and righteous and put upon. They don't want to rise above their old grievances and hatreds. ... Those who cannot let go of fear, hatred, and judgement won't get it. Their inner desire is to perpetuate division along racial and cultural lines, not to do away with it and find human unity. " It seems that the non-conservatives here are demonstarting this to an even higher degree than the conservatives... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Don Firth Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:26 PM Heard on NPR this morning (just a few minutes ago, in fact): "A prominent politician (Obama), in his speech about racism, has just talked to the American public as if they were adults. This is a refreshing change." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:11 PM I note, Bobert and Don, that both of you came into this thread to throw it off topic, by making your usual ad hominem attacks against the messenger. Pretty typical. We'll see if any Mudcatters want to get back to discussions of the thread topic. This game of going into threads to personally attack posters we disagree with, just to throw the thread conversation off topic, is really wearying, not to mention divisive and bullying as all get out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:07 PM Apparently, any meaningful conversations about race relations in the US in 2008 is too difficult a topic for posters here. Better run on over to the "McCain--Liar or Ignorant" thread, and engage in more Bush/McCain bashing to make me feel justifiably smug and self-righteous, like so many posters around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Don Firth Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:06 PM No, you are the hater, GiGi. You're gung-ho Ralph Nader, and you're simply out to try to trash all the other candidates, no matter how far off the track of rationality you have to go. You are to Ralph Nader as Karl Rove was to Bush. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 12:12 PM Bobert, I do not hate Obama. I don't like his brand of corporate politics, and so have chosen not to support his bid for president. Some people can make those distinctions. You, and a handful of other Republican haters here, refuse to make those distinctions, prefering to paint those of us who think critically with the same black brush of hatred that you constantly express here. Critiquing Obama's candidacy is far different than "hating Obama". That is your game--hating anyone who opposes your views, not mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:59 AM There are a lot of people who would rather continue to see things in a stark division of "good vs evil"...."us and them"...because they've become addicted to feeling angry and righteous and put upon. They don't want to rise above their old grievances and hatreds. Such people will not be pleased by Obama's ability to see and honestly recognize both the good AND the bad in people on BOTH sides of a divide...but that's what must be done if the divide is to be healed. You've got to stop seeing things from your own angle only (as a Black person...as a White person...as a Latino...as whatever you think you are)....and start seeing things simply from a human point of view, because your common humanity is a far greater fact than your narrow racial or cultural identity. Those who cannot let go of fear, hatred, and judgement won't get it. Their inner desire is to perpetuate division along racial and cultural lines, not to do away with it and find human unity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:51 AM But Donuel, if we are to welcome the conversations that need to take place about race, then we need to talk about racism within the African American community--the "not black enough" racism. We need to talk about blood quantum in the Native American community--the "not Indian enough" racism. We need to talk about African American anti-Semitism, and we need to talk about immigrant African racism towards the historic African American community. I work in a school building in the middle of a Somali, Hmong & growing Latino immigrant neighborhood, where not one Somali family will send their children. We have two Hmong families sending children to our school, and I think we are up 4 Latino families now. The rest are African American, most of whom get bussed into our school from outside the school's neighborhood boundaries. Why? Families from the Somali, Latino & Asian community will tell you, without exception, the problem is the disrespectful, racist behavior of the African American students and families towards their communities of color, the racist taunting and bullying of their children by the African American kids, and the out of control dyfunctional sexual behavior, that is now causing public schools to segregate African American students into gendered classrooms when they hit puberty. Now is that fair? Some of it, no. Some of it, yes. Is this an incredibly painful conversation about race that whites feel much more comfortable sweeping under the rug, under the guise of "it is racist to talk about inter-racial problems in urban schools". There is an excellent article in yesterday's Boston Globe about Obama's problems with "The Race Issue". It is too long to cut and paste, but here are some snippets: "Obama's odyssey on race Once viewed skeptically by blacks; now hit by whites" By Scott Helman Globe Staff / March 20, 2008 CHICAGO - From the moment Barack Obama first inserted himself into black life in Chicago, he bore the hallmarks of an outsider: light skin; Ivy League education; international background; and views on race, history, and country that were at odds with the aggrieved worldview of much of the city's black community. On the streets of the South Side, where the Black Panther movement, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson flowered, Obama was mocked as a dispossessed newcomer who failed to grasp the historical urgency of the black struggle. "The white man in blackface," a political rival once called him. Though Obama would later convince many black skeptics of his commitment to justice and equality, he made clear he would not be bound by their antagonism toward the white power structure. "Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and toward black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing," he told an interviewer in 1995, before his political career had begun. "But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. . . . We've got communities to build." Today, Obama is under attack from the other end of the spectrum, accused of tacitly endorsing the Afro-centrism and deeply critical views of America expressed by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. To those who know Obama and have followed the arc of his career, the charge makes little sense against a man they have long considered a beacon of a colorblind future. But to critics, Obama's decision to associate himself for 20 years with a church that preaches black nationalism - an association that once helped establish his credibility in the black community - prompts serious questions about his patriotism, judgment, and allegiances." Guest's note: a page later, the article says about Wright and his Christian brand of black nationalism: "Wright was never a Pollyanna about race relations. He railed against white attitudes toward African-Americans and preached self-sufficiency to his black worshipers. Phrases like "God damn America," those who know Wright say, reflected not a fierce anti-Americanism but a deserved, if provocative, indictment of a country that had been hostile to blacks. "This is what I would call the traditional black critique of America, that basically America is flawed on race," said Harwood McClerking, a specialist on race and politics at Ohio State University. "That's a contested premise." Especially in the hot glare of a presidential race. "Do such beliefs translate into a political agenda tailored to African-Americans?" Investor's Business Daily asked in an editorial early last year, when Obama, seeking to distance himself from Wright's views, disinvited Wright from giving the invocation at his campaign kickoff. "Would Obama, despite his agreeably race-neutral and nonthreatening public persona, govern and petition on behalf of one group and not necessarily for the greater good of the country?" So, before everyone comes in and starts trying to equate Tavis Smiley with Rush Limbaugh, remember this--if "race" is the issue, and the conversation Obama supporters seem to feel we need to have at this juncture, this is what's is coming at you from the other way in the long, dark tunnel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM The "gate" portion of this thread implies that a law has been broken, GG... As in watergate, travelgate, snitchgat, etc., etc... We know you hate Obama but to imply that he has broken a law by going to church is, well, below you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: Donuel Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:16 AM I watched Smiley (which he seldom if ever does) and I believe that Barak has said the very thing in which Tavis claims he has not. In fact CNN keeps taking Obama's quote out of context about "Racial division and strife will never end in america..." Meanwhile the Clear Channel AM barrage is going full bore telling people of the need to be afraid, very afraid of the racial hatred coming from Obama. (Yes , from Obama) The same old comments that all liberals are mentally ill are being flung fast and furiously. They also claim that Barak wants to silence talk radio. These AM shock troops do not have a conscience that tells them what is right, rather the right tells them what their conscience is. Their conscience is often based on their dependency for a job. Right now the Clear channel AM is broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer in its entirety while complaining about the Islamization of America , followed by another call in show to condemn Obama'z racism and the double standard that innocent white people must endure. Barak warned of this exact response by the "old guard". I warned of Barak's goose getting cooked by those who worship at the alter of fear and loathing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:05 AM Listening to my African American church going colleagues talk at work about the speech this week, I came to appreciate what Tavis is saying above. Which, in a nutshell, is "thanks for throwing Wright under the bus, in order to reassure your white liberal money base." They are all still planning to vote for him in November if he is on the ballot, mind you. But these folks seemed a lot less enamored of Obama this week. Because, to be frank, they got to say "he didn't throw his white grandma under the bus". It's that loyalty to the race thing, and Wrightgate has ripped open a wound he couldn't really afford to: the whole racially pure "not black enough" issue that has followed him throughout his political climbing. |
|
Subject: BS: Tavis Smiley on Wrightgate From: GUEST,Guest Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM Guest and all others: Please observe the Copy and Paste suggestions in the FAQ. The political threads are especially bad right now. A tiny snip and your personal comments with the link only please.
As the snow falls this morning, and I am not ensared in my daily commute, I've had some time to play catch w/my reading on the campaign, and the fallout from Obama's speech. |
