PDA

View Full Version : Ouch!: "A Brief for Whitey"


Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 03:42 PM
I'm not a big Pat Buchanan fan. I don't ever recall posting anything from him before, but this caught my eye....and upon reading it, he makes several interesting points. I'm not saying I agree entirely with him, but I do think there is some merit to a number of his comments....first and foremost that discussions of issues of race have become one-way lectures far too often, rather than two-way conversations--and the guilt-trip approach is old and stale, and neglects the importance of personal responsibility is so much of this.

:hmmm:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/03/21/a_brief_for_whitey?page=full&comments=true

A Brief for Whitey
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, March 21, 2008

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!"

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."

Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

NewChief
03-21-2008, 03:45 PM
He seems to completely ignore the parts of Barack's speech where he talked about the responsibilities of black people. I think he completely misses the point in that Barack is, seemingly, trying to make it a two-way conversation rather than a one-way lecture. You can debate the authenticity of Barack's speech and how deeply he feels that it's a two-way street, but the words actually did indicate as much.

One passage in particular:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 03:49 PM
He seems to completely ignore the parts of Barack's speech where he talked about the responsibilities of black people. I think he completely misses the point in that Barack is, seemingly, trying to make it a two-way conversation rather than a one-way lecture. You can debate the authenticity of Barack's speech and how deeply he feels that it's a two-way street, but the words actually did indicate as much.

Well, if nothing else, this has caused me to want to listen to Obama's speech again, because....yeah, if you are right, this is really unfair of Buchanan. I'll try getting to it again later tonight.

I'll say though, the first time I heard the speech earlier this week, I thought it was quite good. I'll have to listen carefully to those parts again. :hmmm:

vailpass
03-21-2008, 03:50 PM
Why do we have to have this conversation at all as part of the POTUS race? Why can't the election be about issues that are central and important to the nation in this our time of great need?
America stands at a cross roads and all this time spent on race takes time away from the important issues.
This is exactly why I feel Obama is bad for this nation at this time and sincerely hope he does not get the nomination.
I want the presidential race to be about issues not melanin.

MTG#10
03-21-2008, 03:51 PM
Great article, I agree 100%. :clap:

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 03:54 PM
Another thing about this....and I've contended this for some time, this whole discussin really needs to shift away from race and an "us versus them" sort of an approach on race....and focuse much more strictly on the socio-economic aspects of it.

For example, those crime statistics are actually much more closely associated with socioeconomic status and single-parent families and fatherlessness ... than anything having to do with race.

As long as we continue to cast these issues in terms of race, we not only perpetuate the problem in many ways....but we fail to address the issues in any really constructive way.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:02 PM
Well, if nothing else, this has caused me to want to listen to Obama's speech again, because....yeah, if you are right, this is really unfair of Buchanan. I'll try getting to it again later tonight.

I'll say though, the first time I heard the speech earlier this week, I thought it was quite good. I'll have to listen carefully to those parts again. :hmmm:
How did you miss that. Obama's "white resentment" theme is the very thing that made his speech historic.

Pat is completely (patteeu, watch for it) dishonest in his presentation of the Obama speech.

Shamefully, dishonest.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:03 PM
Great article, I agree 100%. :clap:
So does Obama. Seems PB and you both missed that.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 04:05 PM
How did you miss that. Obama's "white resentment" theme is the very thing that made his speech historic.

Pat is completely (patteeu, watch for it) dishonest in his presentation of the Obama speech.

Shamefully, dishonest.

Like I said, I'll listen again. The first time was right after, and it was 3 shitty Youtube segments....at 1 or 2 am. I'll be more focused this next time....with, hopefully, some better video.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:08 PM
...this whole discussin really needs to shift away from race and an "us versus them" sort of an approach on race...
You really should watch his speech. It's quite good. Look for the part where he says "It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years" and "your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams".

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Like I said, I'll listen again. The first time was right after, and it was 3 shitty Youtube segments....at 1 or 2 am. I'll be more focused this next time....with, hopefully, some better video.

Fair enough. Not sure what Pat Buchanan's excuse is though. Other than "hands over ears" disease.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:10 PM
This is the best I know of online.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWe7wTVbLUU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWe7wTVbLUU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:13 PM
....and focuse much more strictly on the socio-economic aspects of it.
Completely true, and largely what the progessive movement and the economic populist messages are all about. Obama's speech tried to do exactly that.

Without over-selling it, I think you'll really appreciate it when you get the time to sit down and watch it. It's really, really substantial, and it translates very poorly to soundbytes.

It reaquires a full sitting to process it, I think.

As John Stewart said... for the first time ever, a politician talked to the public about race... as if we were all adults.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 04:14 PM
Nice find Kotter!

jettio
03-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Buchanan is the one that said that Bill Clinton had successfully tagged Obama as the black candidate in South Carolina.

Buchanan was heartily behind the tar-baby strategy of making Obama unelectable by reminding enough racist white voters that he just a black man.

Before Obama's speech, Buchanan said that Obama could not repair the damage because no matter how good a speech, all that would happen is that people would ask, "Why did he have to give a speech?" and then the videos of the reverend would be replayed and Obama would lose more ground.

Immediately after Obama's speech, Buchanan was humbled by the power of the speech and did not say the nonsense that he is now trying to sell now.

Buchanan is okay sometimes, but he has to admit that he was behind the tar-baby strategy and that he gets more and more brave in his criticism of Obama the farther and farther away he is from Obama at his best.

Buchanan is going to have to eat his heart out. America is going to elect a black presdient and the southern strategy that Buchanan sold to Nixon will begin to die.

jettio
03-21-2008, 04:36 PM
Nice find Kotter!

You ought not give too much credit to Buchanan for peddling the same ole, same ole crap that he has been peddlin' since the 1964 Civil Rigths Act.

I thought he had more dignity than to make a complete fool of himself, but if he is going to play this southern strategy card and keep selling the tar-baby strategy, MSNBC will have to put somebody in front of him that will call him out on that.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 04:43 PM
I disagree. I thought he made some good points. And I'm not anti-Obama.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 04:44 PM
I disagree. I thought he made some good points. And I'm not anti-Obama.

Which points did he make that Obama didn't at least touch on first in his speech before Buchanan ignored them and pretended like Obama did as well?

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 04:46 PM
I don't know because I only saw parts of Obama's speech. The first part. I just liked some of Pat's points is all.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 04:47 PM
Buchanan is the one that said that Bill Clinton had successfully tagged Obama as the black candidate in South Carolina.

Buchanan was heartily behind the tar-baby strategy of making Obama unelectable by reminding enough racist white voters that he just a black man.

Before Obama's speech, Buchanan said that Obama could not repair the damage because no matter how good a speech, all that would happen is that people would ask, "Why did he have to give a speech?" and then the videos of the reverend would be replayed and Obama would lose more ground.

Immediately after Obama's speech, Buchanan was humbled by the power of the speech and did not say the nonsense that he is now trying to sell now.

Buchanan is okay sometimes, but he has to admit that he was behind the tar-baby strategy and that he gets more and more brave in his criticism of Obama the farther and farther away he is from Obama at his best.

Buchanan is going to have to eat his heart out. America is going to elect a black presdient and the southern strategy that Buchanan sold to Nixon will begin to die.

I said, I'm not big Buchanan fan--and I'm not, though he is politically astute....but, some of the remarks he makes here ring true.

Did he actually use the term "tar-baby"? :spock: Or is that your characterization of his remarks? Just wondering if he was really that stupid. You got a link; if not, I'll dig later.

As for Obama winning, I would hope we are truly past that Southern strategy crap; unfortunately, it worked then....has continued to work, and may yet be a hinderence to Obama's chances in November, regardless of how much you and I may wish we were past that garbage. It will be ironic and disappointing if Obama's long-time pastor were the one to dredge that whole crap back up though. :shake:

jettio
03-21-2008, 04:57 PM
I said, I'm not big Buchanan fan--and I'm not, though he is politically astute....but, some of the remarks he makes here ring true.

Did he actually use the term "tar-baby"? :spock: Or is that your characterization of his remarks? Just wondering if he was really that stupid. You got a link; if not, I'll dig later.

As for Obama winning, I would hope we are truly past that Southern strategy crap; unfortunately, it worked then....has continued to work, and may yet be a hinderence to Obama's chances in November, regardless of how much you and I may wish we were past that garbage. It will be ironic and disappointing if Obama's long-time pasture were the one to dredge that whole crap back up though. :shake:


No he did not use the term "tar baby." but he lauded Clinton for tarring Obama with the label of the black candidate.

I am ashamed of Buchanan, and expect that he will be ashamed of himself if he attends mass this Easter weekend. I hope some of his fellow parishioners will have read this crap article that he has written.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 05:03 PM
No he did not use the term "tar baby." but he lauded Clinton for tarring Obama with the label of the black candidate.

I am ashamed of Buchanan, and expect that he will be ashamed of himself if he attends mass this Easter weekend. I hope some of his fellow parishioners will have read this crap article that he has written.

Serious question: what in this article makes it crap? :shrug:

I've said, I don't agree with it entirely, but I think he makes a number of good points (that I bolded.)

Were you equally critical and harsh in your assessment of Barack's pastor's incendiary comments? Just curious.... :hmmm:

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 05:03 PM
!

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 05:04 PM
I don't really hate Buchanan, but he pretty much encompasses the bad racial stuff that Obama's been speaking about. In January he advocated that the Clintons do what they can to 'ghetto-ize' Obama to try and turn white people off to him.

dirk digler
03-21-2008, 05:04 PM
Why do we have to have this conversation at all as part of the POTUS race? Why can't the election be about issues that are central and important to the nation in this our time of great need?
America stands at a cross roads and all this time spent on race takes time away from the important issues.
This is exactly why I feel Obama is bad for this nation at this time and sincerely hope he does not get the nomination.
I want the presidential race to be about issues not melanin.

I totally agree valipass and lets be honest this isn't Obama's fault he didn't say those words and most reasonable people believe he doesn't believe in those things.

If you want to blame anyone blame the corrupt media in this country.

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 05:18 PM
I totally agree valipass and lets be honest this isn't Obama's fault he didn't say those words and most reasonable people believe he doesn't believe in those things.

If you want to blame anyone blame the corrupt media in this country.

Uh, vailpass thinks Obama made race an issue just by deciding to run and that it's all his fault. :p

Sully
03-21-2008, 05:19 PM
Serious question: what in this article makes it crap? :shrug:

I've said, I don't agree with it entirely, but I think he makes a number of good points (that I bolded.)

Were you equally critical and harsh in your assessment of Barack's pastor's incendiary comments? Just curious.... :hmmm:

1) Reading it quickly and easily leads to the conclusion that he didn't hear/ignored much of/is purposely leaving out the best part of Obama's speech. The part that I was afraid he wouldn't talk about, and the part that I think points to his true intellect.

2) The opening paragraph is flawed as is much of the overreaction to this whole thing, that Wright preached on "Hate and the USKKKA" for 20 years. There is 40 seconds of clips from a 30+ year career. I'm pretty sure that a nationally respected pastor like Wright preached infinitely more times about less "hateful" issues.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 05:37 PM
I don't know because I only saw parts of Obama's speech. The first part. I just liked some of Pat's points is all.

You'd like Obama's speech even more, given the nature of the source.

SBK
03-21-2008, 06:17 PM
I long for the day that this isn't a 'white America' or a 'black America' or any such reference. A day when there's not advantages given to people in the name of equality that actually hold people to higher and lower standards.

This is America. We are equal. No more 'white' or 'black' or 'rich' or 'poor' America's. No USKKKA (that's a joke)! It's one nation. The day we stop dividing by color, budget, religion etc. and just see us all as Americans will be a good day. A place where we're all guaranteed the same thing----a shot at our dreams.

dirk digler
03-21-2008, 06:20 PM
I long for the day that this isn't a 'white America' or a 'black America' or any such reference. A day when there's not advantages given to people in the name of equality that actually hold people to higher and lower standards.

This is America. We are equal. No more 'white' or 'black' or 'rich' or 'poor' America's. No USKKKA (that's a joke)! It's one nation. The day we stop dividing by color, budget, religion etc. and just see us all as Americans will be a good day. A place where we're all guaranteed the same thing----a shot at our dreams.

AMEN

Logical
03-21-2008, 06:32 PM
Why do we have to have this conversation at all as part of the POTUS race? Why can't the election be about issues that are central and important to the nation in this our time of great need?
America stands at a cross roads and all this time spent on race takes time away from the important issues.
This is exactly why I feel Obama is bad for this nation at this time and sincerely hope he does not get the nomination.
I want the presidential race to be about issues not melanin.
Perhaps because Fox news (Primarily Hannity) wanted to run an endless loop of small cuts from Rev Wrights sermons pretty much endlessly and then push the idea that they represent what Obama stands for as a candidate, until the rest of the national media felt they had to also make it an issue.

Yup we should be talking about real issues, but Fox news forced us not to have that luxury.

NewChief
03-21-2008, 06:42 PM
Perhaps because Fox news (Primarily Hannity) wanted to run an endless loop of small cuts from Rev Wrights sermons pretty much endlessly and then push the idea that they represent what Obama stands for as a candidate, until the rest of the national media felt they had to also make it an issue.

Yup we should be talking about real issues, but Fox news forced us not to have that luxury.

Almost exactly word for word what Obama has said repeatedly. It would be nice if we could actually discuss the issues instead of this crap, but we can't. Both sides are guilty of it.

NewChief
03-21-2008, 06:46 PM
Hey, here's someone who expresses similar sentiments:


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.


Oh wait. That's from Obama's speech!

jettio
03-21-2008, 06:51 PM
Serious question: what in this article makes it crap? :shrug:

I've said, I don't agree with it entirely, but I think he makes a number of good points (that I bolded.)

Were you equally critical and harsh in your assessment of Barack's pastor's incendiary comments? Just curious.... :hmmm:

The reason why it is a crap article is it miscasts Obama's words.

Buchanan is a man who has exploited the vestiges of segregated America. He has been a major part of the focused GOP strategy to gain the votes of people that demanded continuing segregation.

Why is Buchanan not questioning the fact of continuing segregation?

Obama spoke of improving all schools. Buchanan is lying and saying that Obama called for improving Black schools only. Buchanan is the one who accepts as unchangeable the idea that schools are segregated.

Why does Buchanan assume that the tax code is racially discriminatory? The IRS does not have different tax schedules for whites and blacks.

Answer me this, why do you accept without question Buchanan's argument that every tax dollar spent was contributed by a white taxpayer. Or that every benevolent act towards black communities were made by white benefactors alone. That has to be the stupidest assumption that I have ever seen a grown person use in a screed.

Do you think that there is a different tax schedule for different racial groups? That would not pass constitutional muster.

Buchanan's argument distilled is that black neighborhoods and schools should remain black neighborhoods and schools and that blacks should fix their own segregated schools and neighborhoods by themselves without asking for white people to help them.

Except of course, Buchanan also argues that black people are so pathologically flawed that they are committing crimes and going to jail when all they have to do is apply to the Ivy league school and take the spot that the unprivileged white kid from Altoona who attends a parochial hgh school rightfully deserves.

Obama gave a speech that acknowledged the existence of white racial resentment and offered a better approach than to do what Buchanan has done with it for the last 40-50 years, fan the flames to make money and gin up votes.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 07:01 PM
I don't really hate Buchanan, but he pretty much encompasses the bad racial stuff that Obama's been speaking about. In January he advocated that the Clintons do what they can to 'ghetto-ize' Obama to try and turn white people off to him.

I'd like to see that. I haven't heard that.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 07:02 PM
Why do we have to have this conversation at all as part of the POTUS race? Why can't the election be about issues that are central and important to the nation in this our time of great need?
America stands at a cross roads and all this time spent on race takes time away from the important issues.
This is exactly why I feel Obama is bad for this nation at this time and sincerely hope he does not get the nomination.
I want the presidential race to be about issues not melanin.
I agree but it seems to me that it was the right that turned this into a big issue to focus on and take it off the other more pressing issues particularly Fox.

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 07:16 PM
I'd like to see that. I haven't heard that.

He was saying it during coverage of a primary one night. He then wrote a piece about it after he perceived the Clintons to have done what he thought they needed to do.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=922

MTG#10
03-21-2008, 07:30 PM
So does Obama. Seems PB and you both missed that.
Im not even talking about Obama, Im just talking about the points he made in general. Im sick to death of the black crybabies that constantly whine about something that they werent even alive to experience, nor were the whites who they whine to. Its 2008, get over it.

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 07:50 PM
Im not even talking about Obama, Im just talking about the points he made in general. Im sick to death of the black crybabies that constantly whine about something that they werent even alive to experience, nor were the whites who they whine to. Its 2008, get over it.

Because the only time you could've ever experienced racism was back in the 50s or 60s.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 08:35 PM
He was saying it during coverage of a primary one night. He then wrote a piece about it after he perceived the Clintons to have done what he thought they needed to do.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=922

I didn't get from reading the link that Pat "advocated" the Clintons ghetto'ize Barack. I got that was his observations on what the Clintons were doing and that he was unelectable for the general. I know Democrats that feel this is the case as they feel the country is still too racist.

From this last paragraph Pat agrees Clinton was right that nominating Barack was a "roll of the dice" for the Democratic party and that the Clintons helped to make sure the risk didn't take place. Anyhow, he turned out to be wrong so far because that was written in January. His predictions have not come true.

One cannot deny that Bill Clinton was right. Nominating Barack would be a “roll of the dice.” But nor can one deny that Bill and Hillary helped make sure the risk would be one the party would not take.

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 08:53 PM
I didn't get from reading the link that Pat "advocated" the Clintons ghetto'ize Barack.

I know, I said he brought it up during primary coverage on MSNBC when they were going over exit poll numbers. He was of the opinion that if the Clintons didn't strategically try to chip away at his support among whites, they'd be in trouble. He then advocated trying to 'ghetto-ize' Obama so that he'd look less appealing to whites.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 08:54 PM
I know, I said he brought it up during primary coverage on MSNBC when they were going over exit poll numbers. He was of the opinion that if the Clintons didn't strategically try to chip away at his support among whites, they'd be in trouble. He then advocated trying to 'ghetto-ize' Obama so that he'd look less appealing to whites.

I see.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 11:14 PM
Completely true, and largely what the progessive movement and the economic populist messages are all about. Obama's speech tried to do exactly that.

Without over-selling it, I think you'll really appreciate it when you get the time to sit down and watch it. It's really, really substantial, and it translates very poorly to soundbytes.

It reaquires a full sitting to process it, I think.

As John Stewart said... for the first time ever, a politician talked to the public about race... as if we were all adults.

38 minutes later, I'm a better and smarter person for listening to Barack's speech again. WOW. Just wow. He hit a bases-loaded Homerun, IMO.

Buchanan's points are, as yet IMHO, still in "play." But don't bet the farm on the service.

Very, very nice; very, very appropriate...as well---at leaste so far. HEH.

Logical
03-21-2008, 11:22 PM
38 minutes later, I'm a better and smarter person for listening to Barack's speech again. WOW. Just wow. He hit a bases-loaded Homerun, IMO.

Buchanan's points are, as yet IMHO, still in "play." But don't bet the farm on the service.

Very, very nice; very, very appropriate...as well---at leaste so far. HEH.
IMO the only reason Pat's nonsense is still in play is because people want to believe the worst, because that is easy. They think that the would be significantly better off if only we did not coddle the lower class and try to help lift them from the bottom.

Sort of sad and pathetic.

HolmeZz
03-21-2008, 11:40 PM
WOW. Just wow. He hit a bases-loaded Homerun, IMO.

We call that a 'Grand Slam'.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 11:45 PM
IMO the only reason Pat's nonsense is still in play is because people want to believe the worst, because that is easy. They think that the would be significantly better off if only we did not coddle the lower class and try to help lift them from the bottom.

Sort of sad and pathetic.

YUP. To reach the conclusions Buchanan did, you had to be listening with only a VERY selective ear. :shake:

We call that a 'Grand Slam'.

A definite, grand-slam.

He addressed each and every point Buchanan raised in his column; and he shot them down as if he was the state champion skeet shooter. Seriously. He anticipated every argument anyone could imagine, and he answered each in a convincing way.

It will, indeed, be a historical classic alongside MLK's "I have a Dream" speech....IMHO. I hope EVERYONE in America will eventually listen closely to the entire speech.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-22-2008, 12:03 AM
Wow, someone must have totally lobotomized Buchanan before he wrote that, or he purposely distorts what Obama said through clear omission.

Obama put the onus on both whites AND blacks, and he did so explicitly. He mentioned affirmative action, welfare, the loss of jobs and how all of that affects working class whites in their relation to blacks.

Upon reading Buchanan's take he's either

1) A sniveling idiot

or

2) A complete hack (shocker) who is trying to take one of the most non-partisan, honest racial speeches, and use it to fan the flames of racial resentment of whites, despite the fact that Obama explicitly mentioned the problems that Buchanan outlines in his article numerous times.

Wow...pathetic. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2008, 12:14 AM
Wow, someone must have totally lobotomized Buchanan before he wrote that, or he purposely distorts what Obama said through clear omission.

Obama put the onus on both whites AND blacks, and he did so explicitly. He mentioned affirmative action, welfare, the loss of jobs and how all of that affects working class whites in their relation to blacks.

Upon reading Buchanan's take he's either

1) A sniveling idiot

or

2) A complete hack (shocker) who is trying to take one of the most non-partisan, honest racial speeches, and use it to fan the flames of racial resentment of whites, despite the fact that Obama explicitly mentioned the problems that Buchanan outlines in his article numerous times.

Wow...pathetic. :shake:

After watching Obama's speech again....you and jettio are right. Wow.

Seriously, the only correct answer...in your terms...is he is BOTH (1) and (2).

A sniveling idiot, AND a pathetic hack.

Buchanan's take....reflects that he could NOT have listened to the speech, but instead....wrote his column on what he had EXPECTED to hear. Which, in the spirit of forgiveness that we've shown Pastor Wright, we could extend to....Pat, here.

If we were being generous, that is. :shake:

Baby Lee
03-22-2008, 06:44 AM
Obama has the same problem he's always had, when it comes down to it people can't be sure where he's gonna fall on the issues.
He has a liberal ideology with a conservative temperment.
He give audience to alternative points of view, but we don't know what that audience is gonna result in.

Take affirmative action. Is there any chance that he's gonna say;

"you guys have convinced me, affirmative action is inherently preferential and contrary our notions of equality."

or

"I hear your complaints and recognize their merits, but the time is not right, as there are still inherent inequalities that must be overcome, but remember we respect your POV [while changing nothing]."

That's a trifle oversimplified, but conservative swing voters are gonna have to decide at some point "is being 'listened to' enough, even if we never hold sway?"

patteeu
03-22-2008, 06:55 AM
He seems to completely ignore the parts of Barack's speech where he talked about the responsibilities of black people. I think he completely misses the point in that Barack is, seemingly, trying to make it a two-way conversation rather than a one-way lecture. You can debate the authenticity of Barack's speech and how deeply he feels that it's a two-way street, but the words actually did indicate as much.

One passage in particular:

He does give lip service to a two way conversation, but to the extent that government programs and mandates can be distilled out of his speech, they are predominantly (maybe exclusively) one way.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 07:03 AM
...this whole discussin really needs to shift away from race and an "us versus them" sort of an approach on race...

You really should watch his speech. It's quite good. Look for the part where he says "It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years" and "your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams".

If you're at all prone to being dazzled by the delivery instead of being able to focus on what's said, like jAZ and so many other Obamadrones, you ought to read the speech transcript instead of watching a video. Focus on the content instead of the delivery.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 07:06 AM
Buchanan is the one that said that Bill Clinton had successfully tagged Obama as the black candidate in South Carolina.

Buchanan was heartily behind the tar-baby strategy of making Obama unelectable by reminding enough racist white voters that he just a black man.

Do you really believe that white racists need any help figuring out that Obama's skin is darker than theirs?

patteeu
03-22-2008, 07:12 AM
The reason why it is a crap article is it miscasts Obama's words.

Buchanan is a man who has exploited the vestiges of segregated America. He has been a major part of the focused GOP strategy to gain the votes of people that demanded continuing segregation.

Why is Buchanan not questioning the fact of continuing segregation?

Obama spoke of improving all schools. Buchanan is lying and saying that Obama called for improving Black schools only. Buchanan is the one who accepts as unchangeable the idea that schools are segregated.

Why does Buchanan assume that the tax code is racially discriminatory? The IRS does not have different tax schedules for whites and blacks.

Answer me this, why do you accept without question Buchanan's argument that every tax dollar spent was contributed by a white taxpayer. Or that every benevolent act towards black communities were made by white benefactors alone. That has to be the stupidest assumption that I have ever seen a grown person use in a screed.

Do you think that there is a different tax schedule for different racial groups? That would not pass constitutional muster.

Buchanan's argument distilled is that black neighborhoods and schools should remain black neighborhoods and schools and that blacks should fix their own segregated schools and neighborhoods by themselves without asking for white people to help them.

Except of course, Buchanan also argues that black people are so pathologically flawed that they are committing crimes and going to jail when all they have to do is apply to the Ivy league school and take the spot that the unprivileged white kid from Altoona who attends a parochial hgh school rightfully deserves.

Obama gave a speech that acknowledged the existence of white racial resentment and offered a better approach than to do what Buchanan has done with it for the last 40-50 years, fan the flames to make money and gin up votes.

It might help if certain black liberation theology preachers didn't preach against the "sinfulness" of middleclassness.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 07:22 AM
Wow, someone must have totally lobotomized Buchanan before he wrote that, or he purposely distorts what Obama said through clear omission.

Obama put the onus on both whites AND blacks, and he did so explicitly. He mentioned affirmative action, welfare, the loss of jobs and how all of that affects working class whites in their relation to blacks.

Upon reading Buchanan's take he's either

1) A sniveling idiot

or

2) A complete hack (shocker) who is trying to take one of the most non-partisan, honest racial speeches, and use it to fan the flames of racial resentment of whites, despite the fact that Obama explicitly mentioned the problems that Buchanan outlines in his article numerous times.

Wow...pathetic. :shake:

So is it your opinion that Obama is calling for an end to affirmative action or is he just giving lip service to the resentment that some whites feel as a result of it's discriminatory results?

And when he talks about whites' resentment over losing jobs, isn't he really talking about a resentment that is focused on foreigners as opposed to blacks? And isn't any remedial action he would propose going to be embraced by protectionism-receptive blacks as well as protectionism-receptive whites (i.e. the liberals and progressives in both races)? Other than asking blacks to better understand whites, can you think of any government actions that Obama would take that would be applauded by the white side of this race-conscious divide but opposed by the black side?

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 08:23 AM
And when he talks about whites' resentment over losing jobs, isn't he really talking about a resentment that is focused on foreigners as opposed to blacks?
BTW I saw a good report that China is now losing manufacturing jobsódue to advancing technology. Thought that was interesting.

jettio
03-22-2008, 08:24 AM
Do you really believe that white racists need any help figuring out that Obama's skin is darker than theirs?

Your question has nothing to do with my point that Buchanan praised Bill Clinton for sowing the southern strategy seeds of race-baiting in South Carolina.

Even as the South Carolina landslide results came in for Obama, Buchanan claimed that Bill Clinton had effectively swung the race in favor of his wife.

Buchanan has been one of the leading proponents and practitioners of the race-baiting southern strategy, and its corollary aimed at white working class voters in the northeast and midwest.

chiefforlife
03-22-2008, 08:27 AM
If you're at all prone to being dazzled by the delivery instead of being able to focus on what's said, like jAZ and so many other Obamadrones, you ought to read the speech transcript instead of watching a video. Focus on the content instead of the delivery.

And if that doesnt work, try clipping it into smaller sections, maybe mix up the paragraphs. Remove the context, then you can gain from it what you want.:shake:

jettio
03-22-2008, 08:27 AM
It might help if certain black liberation theology preachers didn't preach against the "sinfulness" of middleclassness.

Keep yelping and circling.

Enough fair Americans will give Obama a fair hearing no matter how much you keep hoping that enough Americans would become as offended as you like to pretend to be.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:37 AM
And if that doesnt work, try clipping it into smaller sections, maybe mix up the paragraphs. Remove the context, then you can gain from it what you want.:shake:

Are you afraid of people focusing on the words your candidate says instead of paying attention to his apparently intoxicating cadence and his boyish good looks?

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:38 AM
Your question has nothing to do with my point that Buchanan praised Bill Clinton for sowing the southern strategy seeds of race-baiting in South Carolina.

Even as the South Carolina landslide results came in for Obama, Buchanan claimed that Bill Clinton had effectively swung the race in favor of his wife.

Buchanan has been one of the leading proponents and practitioners of the race-baiting southern strategy, and its corollary aimed at white working class voters in the northeast and midwest.

You said, "reminding enough racist white voters that he just a black man", did you not? Why do you think racist white voters need to be reminded?

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:45 AM
Keep yelping and circling.

Enough fair Americans will give Obama a fair hearing no matter how much you keep hoping that enough Americans would become as offended as you like to pretend to be.

I think fair Americans will continue to be offended by Jeremiah Wrights' exploitation of racial divisions and his incitements to racism and wonder why Obama spent 20 years embracing the man. Obama, himself, admits that Wrights statements are "wrong and divisive" even if he doesn't explain which statements fall into that category and which ones are merely "controversial".

What is it that Obama is going to do to heal this division that he's identified in his change-the-subject speech anyway?

MTG#10
03-22-2008, 08:56 AM
Because the only time you could've ever experienced racism was back in the 50s or 60s.

You think blacks are the only ones who experience racism? I cant count how many times Ive been called a c r a c k e r by a black. Blacks can call whites c r a c k e r s and "honkeys" on national television without any reprimand.

jettio
03-22-2008, 09:02 AM
I think fair Americans will continue to be offended by Jeremiah Wrights' exploitation of racial divisions and his incitements to racism and wonder why Obama spent 20 years embracing the man. Obama, himself, admits that Wrights statements are "wrong and divisive" even if he doesn't explain which statements fall into that category and which ones are merely "controversial".

What is it that Obama is going to do to heal this division that he's identified in his change-the-subject speech anyway?


Just keep yelping like a hyena hoping to feed on a carcass. You and Hannity's true colors are already apparent.

Keep hoping to feast on Obama's carcass. I will keep hoping that amoral hyenas like Hannity and yourself eat their own hearts out after continuing to diminish their own reputations.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-22-2008, 09:06 AM
So is it your opinion that Obama is calling for an end to affirmative action or is he just giving lip service to the resentment that some whites feel as a result of it's discriminatory results?

And when he talks about whites' resentment over losing jobs, isn't he really talking about a resentment that is focused on foreigners as opposed to blacks? And isn't any remedial action he would propose going to be embraced by protectionism-receptive blacks as well as protectionism-receptive whites (i.e. the liberals and progressives in both races)? Other than asking blacks to better understand whites, can you think of any government actions that Obama would take that would be applauded by the white side of this race-conscious divide but opposed by the black side?

Regarding point 1, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Race doesn't *just* involve whites and blacks.

Point 2: Before you have any action, shouldn't you at least encourage a dialogue? You are trying to get to the end of the road without even attempting to understand the problem of the journey. That is what Obama is arguing for--an open and honest dialogue about race between the races that acknowledges the problems, resentments, and possible solutions to help ameliorate that problem.

His speech was a conceptual one, not a policy speech. By trying to equate it with the latter, you completely missed the point. You have to have a discussion about the problem, and get all the concerns on the table before you attempt to remedy the solution. Otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 09:46 AM
Regarding point 1, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Race doesn't *just* involve whites and blacks.

Race doesn't just involve whites and blacks, but the concern over Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright (you remember, the whole reason Obama gave this speech in the first place) is predominantly about the white/black aspect of race. In particular, it's about whether or not non-blacks should be concerned about Obama's long-term embrace of a black liberation theology pastor whose sermons have been known to exploit white/black racial tensions.

Point 2: Before you have any action, shouldn't you at least encourage a dialogue? You are trying to get to the end of the road without even attempting to understand the problem of the journey. That is what Obama is arguing for--an open and honest dialogue about race between the races that acknowledges the problems, resentments, and possible solutions to help ameliorate that problem.

His speech was a conceptual one, not a policy speech. By trying to equate it with the latter, you completely missed the point. You have to have a discussion about the problem, and get all the concerns on the table before you attempt to remedy the solution. Otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.

Certainly dialogue is good, and that's the part of Obama's speech that I thought was good. But don't you think that before we elect a president, we ought to have some idea about what policies he's going to advance? What good is it going to do to talk about race in a different way if, when elected, Obama continues to take us down the same path we've been walking for the past 35 or 40 years? He may be about changing the dialogue, but the change (or lack thereof) in policy is where the rubber meets the road. In the context of Obama's political history and his voluntary and enthusiastic association with the radical Rev. Wright, he didn't say anything in his speech to give me confidence that he has a new angle on race-related, race-impacting policies.

Tell me why I should have hope for meaningful change (from a policy standpoint)?

alanm
03-22-2008, 10:04 AM
Let me get this straight now... If we don't vote for Barry Obama it's because were racist? :hmmm:

mlyonsd
03-22-2008, 10:57 AM
Just keep yelping like a hyena hoping to feed on a carcass. You and Hannity's true colors are already apparent.

Keep hoping to feast on Obama's carcass. I will keep hoping that amoral hyenas like Hannity and yourself eat their own hearts out after continuing to diminish their own reputations.

pat's question of what Obama plans to do to heal racial divides is most definitely a fair one. One that all voters have a right to hear the answer to.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2008, 11:10 AM
You really should watch his speech. It's quite good. Look for the part where he says "It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years" and "your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams".

Nor do I feel obligated to subsidize his dream.

jettio
03-22-2008, 01:32 PM
pat's question of what Obama plans to do to heal racial divides is most definitely a fair one. One that all voters have a right to hear the answer to.


He did not ask a fair question, he set the patteeu litmus test that Obama had to specifically propose something that white folks would love and that black folks would oppose.

Here's a quote from his post:
_____________________
patteeu--"Other than asking blacks to better understand whites, can you think of any government actions that Obama would take that would be applauded by the white side of this race-conscious divide but opposed by the black side?"
_________________

How is demanding racially specific pandering a "fair question?"

patteeu
03-22-2008, 01:40 PM
He did not ask a fair question, he set the patteeu litmus test that Obama had to specifically propose something that white folks would love and that black folks would oppose.

Here's a quote from his post:
_____________________
patteeu--"Other than asking blacks to better understand whites, can you think of any government actions that Obama would take that would be applauded by the white side of this race-conscious divide but opposed by the black side?"
_________________

How is demanding racially specific pandering a "fair question?"

What's unfair about that? I'm not interested in any of his initiatives that would appeal to blacks but be opposed by whites, but if you want to list those too, it might be of interest to someone. If you can think of policies that would obliterate racial divisions and be pleasing to both races, please do tell.

How about, instead of finding excuses for not answering you either admit that Obama gave us no reason to hope that he's interested in a departure from the same ol' liberal policies of affirmative action and government handouts or let why my skepticism is misplaced?

patteeu
03-22-2008, 01:59 PM
From Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020089.php):

A bargain becomes a challenge

In A Bound Man (http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Man-Excited-About-Obama/dp/1416559175), Shelby Steele’s insightful book about Barack Obama, Steele distinguishes between two types of successful African-American public figures: bargainers and challengers. Bargainers state, in effect, “I will presume that you're not a racist and by loving me you'll show that my presumption is correct.” Blacks who offer this bargain are betting on white decency. Naturally, whites respond well.

Challengers take a different approach. They say, in effect, that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by conferring tangible benefits on them. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are paradigm challengers. In fact, Steele finds that black politicians tend to prefer this approach because not adopting it leads to suspicion among black leaders and their constituents who fear that if whites are let off the hook too easily, black power will be diminished.

Barack Obama made his political breakthrough as a bargainer. By constantly referring to the national yearning (including, he said, by many Republicans) to "come together" as blacks and whites, Obama presumed we are not racists. His reward was an almost magical appeal to broad portions of the electorate.

Obama, of course, would like to remain a bargainer. But Steele predicted this would be difficult given the scrutiny presidential candidates receive because bargainers must wear a mask. Once we learn who they really are and what they really think about race, the magic is lost. They can no longer offer us the required assurances that they know we’re not racists, and hence they can no longer receive our unconditional love.

Obama, it is now clear, has been wearing a mask. No one who listened to his post-racial happy talk would have guessed that he regularly attends a church run by a pastor who preaches hatred of “White America,” much less that Obama is close to that pastor.

Once the offensive tapes of Wright surfaced, Obama quickly recognized that his candidacy had entered a new phase (call it post-post-racial). Now he would have to remove and/or replace his mask. Now he would have to tell us, at least to some extent, who he really is and what he really thinks about race.

This week Obama did this, and with more candor than might have been expected. Although Obama did not reveal what I take to be his full ambivalence about America as a force in the world, he talked seriously and sincerely about race. He admitted that his election alone will not satisfy our yearning for a post-racial America. To the contrary, Obama disarmingly declared, “I have never been so naÔve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.”

Obama also confessed that, despite his disagreement with Wright’s most extreme statements, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community; I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” And this is not just the result of personal loyalty. It’s also because Obama considers Wright’s extreme views an understandable, though mistaken, reaction to the evils of the America Wright experienced growing up. In fact, Obama was clear that without understanding Wright’s views and taking seriously the “complexity” they reflect, America cannot get on with “solving” its other problems – health care, education, etc.

To some extent, then, Obama became a “challenger.” Whites no longer will be let off the hook easily. They now must confront the “complexity” of race relations that Wright, however imperfectly, raises. And this must be done over an extended period, not just in a single election cycle.

Obama still wants to make a deal with white America, but the deal no longer seems like a great bargain. As Obama puts it:

[We] have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. . . .We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”

For whites to avoid the division and conflict that results from tackling race only as a spectacle, they now must do more than just vote for Obama. They must also

acknowledge[e] that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

Thus, white America is back in the dock. This is challenger talk.

But Obama is not prepared to become Al Sharpton. So he offers a few statements in which he acknowledges that blacks share “complicity in our condition” and that some whites are understandably resentful of measures like busing and racial preferences. He then offers to help us “work[] together” so “we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds.” Obama also makes it plain that we ignore his offer at our peril because “race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”

In effect, Obama is insisting on a national conversation about race, the kind Bill Clinton called for, only with a more authentic moderator.

But I doubt that this is what most non-leftists who fell for Obama were looking to him for. Race remains something that most Americans do not have a strong urge to talk about. And I suspect that many will find the pI have nothing to adderous anti-American remarks of Obama’s spiritual leader, and the fact that some blacks are inspired by them, an insufficient basis for Obama’s invitation to have a national conservation about race. Indeed, some voters previously well-disposed to Obama may even be offended that he is calling for this conversation in response to having been exposed as something other than what they thought he was.

jettio
03-22-2008, 02:04 PM
What's unfair about that? I'm not interested in any of his initiatives that would appeal to blacks but be opposed by whites, but if you want to list those too, it might be of interest to someone. If you can think of policies that would obliterate racial divisions and be pleasing to both races, please do tell.

How about, instead of finding excuses for not answering you either admit that Obama gave us no reason to hope that he's interested in a departure from the same ol' liberal policies of affirmative action and government handouts or let why my skepticism is misplaced?


I think Obama is a little too smart to propose something that assumes racially monolithic thinking on the part of every race and that is specifically designed to piss one race off and make another race think they are getting a great deal at the expense of another race.

Could you at least pretend not to be so ignorant? Go eat some regular food, hyena waiting for a carcass is lozing its mind.

Why don't you run for President on a platform intended to pander to one demographic while humiliating another?

I hope another chiefs planet member can weigh in and let you know that you are getting stupider every day you emulate Hannity.

Why don't you write to the Obama campaign with a specially drafted policy proposal that meets your criteria?

Propose it here first and maybe you can get some good suggestions from other members of the Hannity hyena pack.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 02:56 PM
I think Obama is a little too smart to propose something that assumes racially monolithic thinking on the part of every race and that is specifically designed to piss one race off and make another race think they are getting a great deal at the expense of another race.

Could you at least pretend not to be so ignorant? Go eat some regular food, hyena waiting for a carcass is lozing its mind.

Why don't you run for President on a platform intended to pander to one demographic while humiliating another?

I hope another chiefs planet member can weigh in and let you know that you are getting stupider every day you emulate Hannity.

Why don't you write to the Obama campaign with a specially drafted policy proposal that meets your criteria?

Propose it here first and maybe you can get some good suggestions from other members of the Hannity hyena pack.

I take it that what you just typed there translates to "Obama has no new policies to contribute to healing any racial divisions that exist, he only has dialog". If that's the case, woopty doo. All I can see is that a guy who, through his actions and voluntary associations seems to side with a pretty radical faction of the racial divide, wants to place himself high on a self-righteous seat of judgment and condescend to "typical" folks now that that association has become a political problem for him. As it turns out, he's not the non-racial, non-partisan, anti-political politician that he pretended to be. He's just another guy trying to hide his liberal agenda under the sugar-coating of inclusive, conciliatory (and ultimately empty) happy talk.

Why is it that Obama supporters like yourself were very defensive when the charge against him was that he was all talk, but now that the issue is a double-edged sword, talk is all you guys think we should expect from him?

jettio
03-22-2008, 03:05 PM
I take it that what you just typed there translates to "Obama has no new policies to contribute to healing any racial divisions that exist, he only has dialog". If that's the case, woopty doo. All I can see is that a guy who, through his actions and voluntary associations seems to side with a pretty radical faction of the racial divide, wants to place himself high on a self-righteous seat of judgment and condescend to "typical" folks now that that association has become a political problem for him. As it turns out, he's not the non-racial, non-partisan, anti-political politician that he pretended to be. He's just another guy trying to hide his liberal agenda under the sugar-coating of inclusive, conciliatory (and ultimately empty) happy talk.

Why is it that Obama supporters like yourself were very defensive when the charge against him was that he was all talk, but now that the issue is a double-edged sword, talk is all you guys think we should expect from him?

How about you pass your own litmus test before you criticize the actual contestant of not being able to go on the fool's errand that you propose?

I think Obama has a little too much sense to choose to go on your fool's errand, but why don't you show us a proposal that meets your criteria?

ChiefaRoo
03-22-2008, 03:06 PM
Obama = Lightweight and socialist who is a good looking guy, has outstanding oratory skills. Has almost no political achievements other than voted to the Senate from Illinois.
Hillary = Grizzled, tough, ruthless heavyweight and wants power beyond even most Pols standards, her voice is grating, she older and worst of all she's a socialist as well (at least regarding Healthcare and tax policy)
McCain - Toughest of all, relentless heavyweight with sometimes temper issues, doesn't mind poking the conservatives in the eye (criticism of Bush policies). Is a war hero but some people just don't care. Old guy throwback. Moderate.

I choose McCain who I like to call the "pit beagle" because I can hold my nose and vote for a guy who understands how to defend America eventhough he's left our Southern border out of control.

The end.

chiefforlife
03-22-2008, 04:17 PM
Patteeu,
Since the race issue has suddenly become so important to you. Perhaps you can tell us what your candidate, Mr.McCain is going to do about race and racism in this country?
How is it he is going to heal America? You obviously feel that Obama should somehow be able to solve this, then surely Mr. McCain has a remedy.

MTG#10
03-22-2008, 04:37 PM
Patteeu,
Since the race issue has suddenly become so important to you. Perhaps you can tell us what your candidate, Mr.McCain is going to do about race and racism in this country?
How is it he is going to heal America? You obviously feel that Obama should somehow be able to solve this, then surely Mr. McCain has a remedy.

Nobody is going to "heal" or cure racism. Racism has always existed and always will. There are just as many racist blacks as racist whites, as well as racist asians, latinos, etc. White America has done more than enough to try to make up for what happened in the 50's and 60's, but no matter how many special rights we give and no matter how many government programs we offer it will never be enough for some. Its time for black America to step up to the plate, accept their own responsibilities, take some initiative and stop blaming all of their shortcomings and misfortunes on "The Man".

patteeu
03-22-2008, 05:17 PM
How about you pass your own litmus test before you criticize the actual contestant of not being able to go on the fool's errand that you propose?

I think Obama has a little too much sense to choose to go on your fool's errand, but why don't you show us a proposal that meets your criteria?

So you're saying that Obama's smart enough not to go outside the safe territory of high-minded, but essentially hollow rhetoric on this hot potato issue? Then we agree.

Now that we've gotten past that distraction, let's get back to what enthusiastically hitching his political wagon to a resentful, overly-race-conscious pastor prone to "wrong and divisive" statements for 20 years means relative to Obama's character and judgment.

memyselfI
03-22-2008, 05:21 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

At the people who are insisting Baarack can hea or fixl the racial divide. Throughout the history of humans there have been divides between races, religions, sexes, etc. To think one person can fix an issue like that is truly delusional...

or messianic. Or both.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 05:24 PM
Patteeu,
Since the race issue has suddenly become so important to you. Perhaps you can tell us what your candidate, Mr.McCain is going to do about race and racism in this country?
How is it he is going to heal America? You obviously feel that Obama should somehow be able to solve this, then surely Mr. McCain has a remedy.

What leads you to the conclusion that the race issue is important to me? I think we've made tons of progress over the past 40 years and I think the next generation is poised to make even more just because of changing attitudes.

I'm more interested in the "committed liberal with a history of radical associations" issue and the "wolf in sheep's clothing" issue.

And while I'll end up voting for McCain this fall, he's far from "[my] candidate".

chiefforlife
03-22-2008, 05:26 PM
No one is suggesting that Obama can heal this issue, Patteeu was asking what Obama is going to do to heal the race issue. I thought it only fair to ask the same of McCain.

Obama is the only politician able to speak of the issue at all. If it came to light because of his pastor, so be it. He did not run from it, he addressed it quite well.

memyselfI
03-22-2008, 05:34 PM
No one is suggesting that Obama can heal this issue, Patteeu was asking what Obama is going to do to heal the race issue. I thought it only fair to ask the same of McCain.

Obama is the only politician able to speak of the issue at all. If it came to light because of his pastor, so be it. He did not run from it, he addressed it quite well.

He is not the only politician who can speak of the issue. MOF, he was running from the issue until he was forced to address it because of Pastor Wright. He has been so completely disingenuous about the issue that I think he lacks any kind of authentic authority on it any longer.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 05:36 PM
No one is suggesting that Obama can heal this issue, Patteeu was asking what Obama is going to do to heal the race issue. I thought it only fair to ask the same of McCain.

Obama is the only politician able to speak of the issue at all. If it came to light because of his pastor, so be it. He did not run from it, he addressed it quite well.

He found himself in a corner and tried to change the subject. He tried to turn the tables from a focus on him and a specific set of questions revolving around his 20 year association with Rev. Wright to a focus on racially conscious and sometimes resentful blacks (e.g. his pastor) and racially conscious and sometimes resentful whites (e.g. his grandmother) while he took a position above the fray posing as a mediator. It's sleight of hand.

keg in kc
03-22-2008, 05:37 PM
All this spin.

I hereby make a motion that we rename Washington, DC, "The Laundromat".

chiefforlife
03-22-2008, 05:42 PM
What leads you to the conclusion that the race issue is important to me? I think we've made tons of progress over the past 40 years and I think the next generation is poised to make even more just because of changing attitudes.

I'm more interested in the "committed liberal with a history of radical associations" issue and the "wolf in sheep's clothing" issue.

And while I'll end up voting for McCain this fall, he's far from "[my] candidate".

Your posts in this topic seems as if you want Obama to solve this, not just give his opinion. If I have misinterpreted, I apologize.
The fact that he is a candidate speaks to the progress you mention, I agree. It is welcomed but seems to have taken a turn for the worse this last week.
I too was concerned at first but listening to his speech and considering his history, I am convinced he is who he says he is.

As you know I am Republican but feel they have no horse in this race, I will not vote for McCain just because he is Republican.
Had the Republicans given me Colin Powell, I would have a much easier decision as he would be the only person I would vote for over Obama.
I know you will say, how can you be for Powell or Obama? It has more to do with the person than the issues for me now. Powell would give me both, but I dont have that option.
I voted for GW for the issues and now regret it. Big change is in order and you have to admit, that is Obama.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 05:52 PM
Your posts in this topic seems as if you want Obama to solve this, not just give his opinion. If I have misinterpreted, I apologize.
The fact that he is a candidate speaks to the progress you mention, I agree. It is welcomed but seems to have taken a turn for the worse this last week.
I too was concerned at first but listening to his speech and considering his history, I am convinced he is who he says he is.

As you know I am Republican but feel they have no horse in this race, I will not vote for McCain just because he is Republican.
Had the Republicans given me Colin Powell, I would have a much easier decision as he would be the only person I would vote for over Obama.
I know you will say, how can you be for Powell or Obama? It has more to do with the person than the issues for me now. Powell would give me both, but I dont have that option.
I voted for GW for the issues and now regret it. Big change is in order and you have to admit, that is Obama.

So change is what you want even if it's far left, radical liberal change? We've been through this before. I don't know how you can consider yourself a Republican if you are so indifferent to the positions on issues that you're willing to vote for anyone, no matter how liberal, as long as it's a change.

And when you say you're convinced that Obama is who he says he is, I don't have a clue what you mean. I think it's more likely that he is who he's always been.

chiefforlife
03-22-2008, 06:03 PM
So change is what you want even if it's far left, radical liberal change? We've been through this before. I don't know how you can consider yourself a Republican if you are so indifferent to the positions on issues that you're willing to vote for anyone, no matter how liberal, as long as it's a change.

And when you say you're convinced that Obama is who he says he is, I don't have a clue what you mean. I think it's more likely that he is who he's always been.

Where has my conservative candidate gotten us...10 trillion is debt. At least Obama is honest about the money he wants to spend and where it will be spent.
I dont agree with either party on everything. In fact I dont agree with a lot of Obamas opinions but I believe him when he says them.
The only Republican we have to offer is more of the same, the country can not sustain the direction we are heading.
Sometimes you have to take one for the team, put the greater good above your own ideals. Much like the Chiefs, the whole thing needs to be rebuilt in a manner we havent tried before.

Otter
03-22-2008, 06:33 PM
I think it would be cool to be a midget for a day, black or white. You're perceived as so non-threatening, I'd dress up funny and get in all kinds of shenanigans.

KCTitus
03-22-2008, 06:42 PM
Where has my conservative candidate gotten us...10 trillion is debt.

Wrong...Bush is no conservative. A conservative doesnt spend us into oblivion. What exactly is change about Obama and what Bush did? He's going to spend 10 Trillion more and on the same nonsense all the while destorying America as a superpower and placating those that wish to bring the US down.

There is no conservative candidate for president this year...so basically you have 3 candidates vying to destory America with varying degrees of speed. You want a slow death, McCain...you want the rocketsled to Hell, choose the other two.

For me, Ive finally begun arming myself, while the 2nd ammendment still lives. It will be lock and load time, and Im not going to be another sheep lead to slaughter.

alanm
03-22-2008, 07:05 PM
Wrong...Bush is no conservative. A conservative doesnt spend us into oblivion. What exactly is change about Obama and what Bush did? He's going to spend 10 Trillion more and on the same nonsense all the while destorying America as a superpower and placating those that wish to bring the US down.

There is no conservative candidate for president this year...so basically you have 3 candidates vying to destory America with varying degrees of speed. You want a slow death, McCain...you want the rocketsled to Hell, choose the other two.

For me, Ive finally begun arming myself, while the 2nd ammendment still lives. It will be lock and load time, and Im not going to be another sheep lead to slaughter.
:D Where the hell have you been Titus?

MTG#10
03-22-2008, 07:09 PM
I think we've made tons of progress over the past 40 years and I think the next generation is poised to make even more just because of changing attitudes.


No kidding. Hell, even 20 years ago a black presidential candidate wouldnt have had a chance in hell at even winning a nomination.

KCTitus
03-22-2008, 07:13 PM
:D Where the hell have you been Titus?

Ive been BIZZZEEE!

Logical
03-22-2008, 07:48 PM
Obama has the same problem he's always had, when it comes down to it people can't be sure where he's gonna fall on the issues.
He has a liberal ideology with a conservative temperment.
He give audience to alternative points of view, but we don't know what that audience is gonna result in.

Take affirmative action. Is there any chance that he's gonna say;

"you guys have convinced me, affirmative action is inherently preferential and contrary our notions of equality."

or

"I hear your complaints and recognize their merits, but the time is not right, as there are still inherent inequalities that must be overcome, but remember we respect your POV [while changing nothing]."

That's a trifle oversimplified, but conservative swing voters are gonna have to decide at some point "is being 'listened to' enough, even if we never hold sway?"
This is an excellent post and I agree that reverse discrimination has also become a problem. But let me ask something does anyone realistically feel it is truly a level playing field and what would you do to correct that issue?

clemensol
03-23-2008, 10:36 AM
"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

Wow, I knew Pat Buchanon was a pretty crazy guy but that christian salvation line even stunned me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2008, 10:43 AM
This thread has brought to the forefront what I believe most of us have always known; namely that it's impossible to have a debate with either patteeu or d*nise because they don't respond to what you say, but rather what they think that you will say in order to make their beliefs somehow appear salient or logical.

patteeu
03-23-2008, 11:16 AM
This thread has brought to the forefront what I believe most of us have always known; namely that it's impossible to have a debate with either patteeu or d*nise because they don't respond to what you say, but rather what they think that you will say in order to make their beliefs somehow appear salient or logical.

I wish I could figure out what you just said.

mlyonsd
03-23-2008, 02:12 PM
He did not ask a fair question, he set the patteeu litmus test that Obama had to specifically propose something that white folks would love and that black folks would oppose.

Here's a quote from his post:
_____________________
patteeu--"Other than asking blacks to better understand whites, can you think of any government actions that Obama would take that would be applauded by the white side of this race-conscious divide but opposed by the black side?"
_________________

How is demanding racially specific pandering a "fair question?"

I don't care what patteeu posted.

Because Obama has spent 20 years in a church where some pretty racial ideas are spewed from the pulpit from time to time I still think it's a fair question.

Denouncing the comments but still giving money and taking your family to that church makes you part of the problem. And since I see him as part of the problem I'd like to know what his ideas are to help battle racism.

stevieray
03-23-2008, 02:17 PM
I wish I could figure out what you just said.

it's like when anyone mentions Obama, certain people post "typical" things like did I mention his middle name is HUSSEIN, etc ad nauseum...:doh!:

'eight mile political rap showdown"

Logical
03-23-2008, 02:44 PM
This thread has brought to the forefront what I believe most of us have always known; namely that it's impossible to have a debate with either patteeu or d*nise because they don't respond to what you say, but rather what they think that you will say in order to make their beliefs somehow appear salient or logical.To quote a brilliant poster "PRETTY MUCH"

jettio
03-23-2008, 03:48 PM
I don't care what patteeu posted.

Because Obama has spent 20 years in a church where some pretty racial ideas are spewed from the pulpit from time to time I still think it's a fair question.

Denouncing the comments but still giving money and taking your family to that church makes you part of the problem. And since I see him as part of the problem I'd like to know what his ideas are to help battle racism.

Wright and Obama have plenty of friends of all races. Just because the pastor has said some things that opportunists like Hannity would try to exploit does not prove the church to be "part of the problem."

The United Church of Christ does not have very many churches with mostly black membership and Wright gets along well with the other churches and the church leadership. He also gets along well with clergy and people from other faiths.

If you believe in God and you believe in some notion of equality and you believe in Salvation by the gospel you ought to not jump to conclusions about a church and its members based on a few snapshots without knowing more about it.

If you believe in God, equality, and salvation you would have a tough time explaining why you think you know so much more than the church's members and the larger United Church of Christ about that church, its members and their lives and their beliefs.

You can choose to be a part of the crowd that will keep trying to judge Obama and what you will find is that you will end up with nothing but people that do not even believe in God and religion making all of the noise all of the time.

You will find that the people attacking Obama and Wright the most will not do much of anything towards advancing religion or racial harmony.

mlyonsd
03-23-2008, 04:10 PM
Wright and Obama have plenty of friends of all races. Just because the pastor has said some things that opportunists like Hannity would try to exploit does not prove the church to be "part of the problem."

The United Church of Christ does not have very many churches with mostly black membership and Wright gets along well with the other churches and the church leadership. He also gets along well with clergy and people from other faiths.

If you believe in God and you believe in some notion of equality and you believe in Salvation by the gospel you ought to not jump to conclusions about a church and its members based on a few snapshots without knowing more about it.

If you believe in God, equality, and salvation you would have a tough time explaining why you think you know so much more than the church's members and the larger United Church of Christ about that church, its members and their lives and their beliefs.

You can choose to be a part of the crowd that will keep trying to judge Obama and what you will find is that you will end up with nothing but people that do not even believe in God and religion making all of the noise all of the time.

You will find that the people attacking Obama and Wright the most will not do much of anything towards advancing religion or racial harmony.

I think advancing religion and racial harmony might be best served if he was asked and answered the question.

I don't think I'm an Obama basher and have already been on record saying I'd be ok if he were president.

So take your judgemental bullshit somewhere else.

mlyonsd
03-23-2008, 04:13 PM
Wright and Obama have plenty of friends of all races. Just because the pastor has said some things that opportunists like Hannity would try to exploit does not prove the church to be "part of the problem."

The United Church of Christ does not have very many churches with mostly black membership and Wright gets along well with the other churches and the church leadership. He also gets along well with clergy and people from other faiths.

If you believe in God and you believe in some notion of equality and you believe in Salvation by the gospel you ought to not jump to conclusions about a church and its members based on a few snapshots without knowing more about it.

If you believe in God, equality, and salvation you would have a tough time explaining why you think you know so much more than the church's members and the larger United Church of Christ about that church, its members and their lives and their beliefs.

You can choose to be a part of the crowd that will keep trying to judge Obama and what you will find is that you will end up with nothing but people that do not even believe in God and religion making all of the noise all of the time.

You will find that the people attacking Obama and Wright the most will not do much of anything towards advancing religion or racial harmony.

One more thing, take a good long look in the mirror, you're part of the problem with politics today so I wouldn't be so quick to judge anyone else.

jettio
03-23-2008, 04:34 PM
I think advancing religion and racial harmony might be best served if he was asked and answered the question.

I don't think I'm an Obama basher and have already been on record saying I'd be ok if he were president.

So take your judgemental bullshit somewhere else.


Well patteeu has already failed to defend the litmus test that he proposed.

You go ahead and come up with some policy for Obama that meets the criteria of making white folks happy and black folks mad and forward it to the campaign.

I don't know that anybody could pass that test and don't see why any sane person would try to pass it, but if you think it is a good idea then make the most of it.

jettio
03-23-2008, 04:35 PM
One more thing, take a good long look in the mirror, you're part of the problem with politics today so I wouldn't be so quick to judge anyone else.


Quit being silly.