-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/monday-open-thread-its-a-new-week-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I heard about that article. To be honest, I could care less so long as Obama wins the nomination by Tuesday (or early Wednesday at the latest).
But we should note that this undercuts Hillary's "I've been vetted" nonsense. No she hasn't and neither has her husband, post-presidency. It's just Obama chose not to talk about the skeletons in their closet.
Bill can dj a strip club for all I care. I just want him and Hillary out of this race.
JASMYNE CANNICK: Anti-Black attitudes, alleged Democrats, Black political deference, and why I’m still a Democrat.
The short and sweet of it is that the Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee decided to seat all of Florida and Michigan’s delegates at the convention in August.
The catch? They only get a half-vote. This is to penalize them for moving up their primaries. The committee’s ruling gave Clinton 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 from Michigan, with a total of 87 votes.
Obama received 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 from Michigan, casting a total of 63 votes. The decision keeps Obama’s lead in tact.
Enter angry Clinton supporters who are claiming that the Democratic Party is throwing the election away on an “inadequate Black man” and that if she isn’t the nominee—hello McCain! Can you imagine the fallout if an Obama supporter had been quoted in the media calling Clinton an ‘inadequate woman,’ let alone an ‘inadequate white woman?’ The media would have a field day—no make that week!
At election time, I fully expect the Republican Party to try and incite mass hysteria at the polls under the guise of morality—and the Old Testament. What I don’t expect is for members of my own party to throw temper tantrums and put aside common sense choosing to side with the opposition just because their candidate is losing.
These alleged Democrats—the same ones screaming for universal healthcare, gay marriage, and an end to the war in Iraq, are willing to throw it all away if their candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
Statements of Obama being an “inadequate Black man” clearly show that the Democratic Party, as liberal as we might want to claim ourselves to be, still carry anti-Black attitudes among its rank and file members. Attitudes that up until this point were for the most part covert, but over the past year have now become blatantly overt as Clinton supporters lash out in anger—and desperation, the latest being at the DNC rules committee meeting with the comment of Obama being an “inadequate Black man.”
I’d like to believe that the anger expressed by Clinton’s supporters is because of their devotion to her as a candidate and perceived injustices. But after a bevy of racist comments from Clinton’s supporters and the Clinton’s themselves, I am more inclined to believe that there is a strong segment of Democrats, mostly white, who see Obama’s ascension as threatening and it has nothing to do with Clinton’s experience.
I came to this conclusion after repeated charges by Clinton supporters that if she didn’t win the nomination that they were either not going to vote or were going to vote for McCain. Well that and Clinton’s own admission that she’s the more electable candidate, which if you listen to her closely sounds a lot more like she’s touting her skin color than her experience.
This is much bigger than the notion that Clinton is the better candidate. Because if it was about her being the better candidate, then it would have been Obama is an “inadequate man” verses an “inadequate Black man.” And Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro would have blamed Obama’s popularity on his sex rather than his race. No, this is about fear related to the unresolved racial tension between Black and white America in a country that has yet to officially apologize for its role in slavery and the years of institutionalized racism that have since followed leaving a bitter taste in the mouth of many Blacks.
With my one Democratic vote, I know I can voice my opposition against the Republican Party, their failed policies, and conservative principles that further promote economic and social depression.
What I struggle with is how to voice opposition in my own party where even those elected to represent my interests have conformed to the point where their own status within the Party and with the Clinton’s has taken precedence over standing up against the Party’s recent racist tirades. Tirades, that while mainly directed towards Obama, are a direct reflection of the Party’s lingering anti-Black attitudes among some of its white members.
There’s all this talk of party unification among Obama and Clinton supporters going into November, but very little has been said about reconciling with Black Democrats who after it’s all been said and done, spent the last year watching Obama, a Black man, being called everything but a nigger (in public) and his wife Michelle a ‘washer woman.’ As one of those Black Democrats, am I expected to just turn the other cheek and continue on in a Party that is fine having Blacks as members, but divided on whether or not we’re capable of serving as leaders or the Commander-in-Chief?
It’s been 37 years since Democratic Representatives Shirley Chisholm, William Clay, George Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Charles Diggs, Augustus Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and DC Delegate Walter Fauntroy founded the Congressional Black Caucus. And even though Democrats are on the verge of having a Black presidential nominee, and we have 43 members currently serving in the CBC, the Democratic Party itself has been and continues to be mostly white led (male and female). From the DNC officers and Democratic Party organizational leadership, Black faces are far and few between on the leadership pages, which could explain the lingering pre-Reconstruction anti-Black attitudes among some white Democrats regarding Obama’s ascendancy.
Earlier this year California Representative and CBC member Diane Watson said that when people her age in the Party are dead and gone that people Obama’s age and younger could come in and run things. I just don’t think I can wait until then—in fact, I don’t think the country can wait until then.
We need change now and not just a change in the White House, we need change in our own party before we self-implode. For far too long, Black voters have participated in political deference when we should be asking our CBC brothers and sisters why, regardless of whom they are supporting for President, they are silent when members of the Party refer to their colleague (Obama is in the CBC), as an “inadequate Black man?” If he’s an inadequate Black man, what does that make them? The Democrats need to be challenged on why minorities, females, and those under 30 are encouraged to vote, but not to lead, and why when they attempt to lead their voices are quickly drowned out. I need to know why it’s more of an asset in California to be a gay male or female in the Democratic Party than to be Black—straight or gay.
Democratic Presidential frontrunner Obama says it’s time for ‘change’ and Clinton says that she’s got the ‘experience.’ Well my experience with change is that it doesn’t come without a struggle, but it does come. If I owe anything to these two candidates it’s gratitude for awakening the need to ask why and to challenge the status quo in my own Party, which is much more gratifying at the end of the day than walking away in disgust with the whole damn process and declaring myself an Independent.
Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_camp_converging_on_New_York_Tuesday_and_shedding_staff.html
Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff
Someone emailed The Morning Joe crew telling them that until they dig into John McCain's pastors, they need to lay off of Obama's so called pastor problem. Dan Rather said that he suspected that emails like that are orchestrated. Yep, Dan Rather, who lost his job thanks to his reporting on Bush, thinks that any emails criticizing the media's coverage of Wright/Pfleger/Trinity are phoney!
Of course, resident MSNBC bubble head, Mica Briewzinsky, claimed that they did talk about Hagee and the two situations ar different. Rather also said that the reason why Hillary hasn't received flack for her religious affiliations is because nothing has been found. I guess they missed the memo about The Family.
Was the Iraq War Worth It?…and I challenge you to read the piece before just blindly answering the question!!!
And…
For Liberals, Soldiers are Victims
Also, if there's any JJP readers in VA, hit me an email....working on a project.
I expected this white resentment of Obama's ascension, primarily because I saw the same kind of resentment of Jesse Jackson; of L. Douglas Wilder; of David Dinkins; of Harold Ford; of Deval Patrick. But I've also seen it with would-be U.S. Senator like Colorado's Mike Miles, who had happen to him precisely what we feared would happen to Barack: a Democratic party that nominated someone with fewer delegates because they were more electable (and not Black).
For too long, Black rank and file Democrats have obediently accepted the role of "disgruntled employee", instead of "vested owner". With the ascension of Barack Obama, hopefully Black Democrats are learning that ownership has its privileges.
“Her feminist supporters are also suggesting that their heroine is the victim of "sexism." Meanwhile, if the superdelegates do give the nomination to Mrs. Clinton, many of Mr. Obama's supporters will cry "racism." The identity politics that Democrats love to use against Republicans has now come back to haunt them.”
you've only STARTED to dislik the Dark Sith? What took you so long?
LOL
it's from Anne Geddes. She does interesting pics with babies.
The progress made in Iraq will continue to pressure the MSM and Obama to acknowledge our success.
Once Obama wraps up the nomination and he will pivot to the center. He is a smooth, cool political operator. Look how he played Wright and TUCC to consolidate his support among black voters, but now has disavowed the pastor and resigned the church in order to make himself more electable to moderates and independents. Black support remains firmly in tact.
Now, Obama has held to his firm anti-war, all-is-lost, surge won't make a difference stance, in order to keep the moveon money flowing. But soon he will 'take the money and run' to the center on this issue is well.
Flag pin. Wright. See the pattern?
Its all about the center. With the black vote and the far left anti-war vote forming the base of his support, he will now take politically expedient and opportunistic route, just like any other ambitious politician.
Expect to see Obama serve up a new brand of koolaid.
'Obama-lite,' anyone? Tastes great, less liberal. Care to take a sip?
Is this an Ann Gettes(sp) photo?
Tastes great, less liberal...priceless.
The Trinity UCC element of the electorate wasn't going to disavow Obama just because he left the church. That would mean voting for McCain (who they don't like) or Clinton (who they don't like more). Unfortunately, that move isn't going to swing any votes to him.
Obama is going to go radically center once he gets the nomination. I expect a lot of attempts to "clarify" his previous statements on Iraq, the War on Terror, etc. I also expect the populace to see it for what it is: political pandering.
That's probably why he hasn't been to Iraq lately, because he's then left with two options: acknowledge the success and piss off Soros' crowd, or openly lie to the American public.
The question then becomes what does the anti-war crowd do? Do they run back to Hillary (who already threw them under the bus)? Do they run to Bob Barr (who really won't win)? Or, God forbid, do they actually crawl back under their rocks?
June 2, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
What Obama Left Out
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Commencement speeches are hard.
I gave one at a college about seven years ago. I labored over it, consulting orations from years past, writing and rewriting drafts. I ended up with remarks that struck me — even while I delivered them — as banal and platitudinous. Luckily, no one seemed to be paying much attention — and at least I kept it short. I don’t think I did too much damage to the enjoyment of the day by the graduating students and their parents.
Since then, whenever I look at the annual roundup of commencement addresses, I can’t help but admire those who can pull off this mode of speechifying.
Barack Obama, you won’t be surprised to learn, can pull it off. He spoke on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., pinch-hitting for Senator Ted Kennedy, on the theme of service to our country. The speech was skillfully crafted and well delivered, the grace notes were graceful, and the exhortations to public service seemed heartfelt but not cloying.
The speech was a success. It’s also revealing — about Obama’s view of himself and of public service.
Obama chooses to introduce the notion of public service from an autobiographical point of view. In college, he explains, “I began to notice a world beyond myself.” So while his friends were seeking jobs on Wall Street, he applied for jobs as a grass-roots activist. And one day, a group of churches in Chicago offered him a job as a community organizer for “$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.”
“And I said yes.”
Those four words form their own paragraph in the prepared text. Obama wants us to be impressed by the drama of his spurning the big bucks, by his bold acceptance of such a pittance of money in order that he could do good.
Leave aside the fact that two years elapsed between Obama’s graduation from Columbia in 1983 and his heading off to Chicago in 1985. Dramatic foreshortening is, after all, sometimes necessary. And leave aside whether $14,000 in 1985 was really such a shockingly low salary for someone recently out of college — in inflation-adjusted dollars, it’s about what we pay entry-level editorial assistants today at The Weekly Standard.
Obama’s point is that he went on to do good in Chicago — and that the college graduates to whom he’s speaking should follow in his exemplary footsteps. Of course, most politicians do admire themselves and their excellent careers. So perhaps one shouldn’t make too much of Obama’s sin of self-regard.
More striking is Obama’s sin of omission. In the rest of the speech, he goes on to detail — at some length — the “so many ways to serve” that are available “at this defining moment in our history.” There’s the Peace Corps, there’s renewable energy, there’s education, there’s poverty — there are all kinds of causes you can take up “should you take the path of service.”
But there’s one obvious path of service Obama doesn’t recommend — or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace.” And, we face “big challenges like war and recession.” But there’s nothing about serving your country in uniform.
It can’t be that the possibility of military service as an admirable form of public service didn’t occur to Obama. Only the day before, Obama had been squabbling with John McCain about veterans’ benefits. He said then, “Obviously I revere our soldiers and want to make sure they are being treated with honor and respect.”
And the day after the Wesleyan commencement, Obama was in New Mexico, where he read an eloquent and appropriate Memorial Day tribute to our fallen soldiers.
But at an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service — one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country
Nor did Obama choose to mention all those college graduates who are now entering the military, either for a tour of duty or as a career, in order to serve their country. He certainly felt no impulse to wonder whether the nation wouldn’t be better off if R.O.T.C. were more widely and easily available on elite college campuses.
Obama failed to challenge — even gently — what he must have assumed would be the prejudices of much of his audience and indulged in a soft patriotism of low expectations.
Was this a public service?
Identity politics is what caused you to claim, ignorantly mind you, that Wright's and Cone's ideas about Black Liberation Theology were racism when they most definitely and demonstrably are not.
The IDENTITY POLITICS you promoted had you claiming VICTIMHOOD (for yourself perhaps) when none exists. None exist by virtue of the ACTIONS of Wright or Cone, etc. and none exist by virtue of KKK-like PREJUDICED words.
It's the ultimate in both HYPOCRISY and IDENTITY POLITICS for critics of Democrats or the identity politics of women and African-Americans to not only act offended by IMAGINED attacks against someone's IDENTITY but to have the nerve to act like it other people who engage in IDENTITY POLITICS when the basis of their criticism of women and African-Americans is based on an IDENTITY POLITICS paradigm perhaps of their (your) own.
So what we have here is some high-tech finger pointing with more HD fingers pointing right back at Republicans, etc. who gripe about the identity politics of others.
Republican rhetoric re: "illegal" immigration >>> WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS. Ask John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/
Three questions:
1. Do you think that the result of the DNC's meeting this weekend was rooted in sexism?
2. If Clinton is given the nomination, do you think it would be a racist statement?
3. Do you deny that the democrats have played to the black populace by labeling Republicans as racist?
1. Do you think that the result of the DNC's meeting this weekend was rooted in sexism?*****
HELL NO
If the shoe was on the OTHER FOOT (i.e. Hillpatine was winning the way that Obama is now)
The only thing we would have heard was
" You gotta follow the rules."
You know it. I know it.
This MI/FL BS would have been NON-EXISTENT.
Sorry d, I just don't believe it any other way.
2. If Clinton is given the nomination, do you think it would be a racist statement?****
HELL YES
Barack Obama follows THE RULES and wins the majority of the metric the DNC says will be used to determine a nominee - PLEDGED DELEGATES, and they STEAL IT AND GIVE IT TO HER?
Oh HELL YEAH, that's racism.
3. Do you deny that the democrats have played to the black populace by labeling Republicans as racist?**
Actually d, the GOP's done that all for themselves, with a little thing called ' The Southern Strategy'.
THAT'S WHY when Camp Hillpatine began to use it on Obama, so many Black folk knew it instinctively, long before the MSM would acknowledge it.
I know...I know, that it is impossible for an 'African-American' or 'African-Americans' to be racist/s. Just ask Cone or Wright, huh.
The photo of the babies is too cute! Talk about precious!
10. CNN'S Lou Dobbs
Not one positive Barack story on his show yet. Called Richardson endorsement, Barack pandering to hispanic commnity.
9. Rush Limbaugh.
The top RADIO Right Wing Nut who has said "I bet Bill and Hillary regret that Affirmative Action reform now."
8. Ann Coulter.
Flat out Bitch..Proffeisional Democrat Hit Job atist.
7. Hillary Clinton.
Im ready, McCains Ready, he gave a speech, and He cannot win Bill, he cannot win......
6. CBC.
They cut both ways. First when he does get it, I wanna see them shuffle around looking for excuses as to why they didnt support him. If he doesnt, then I wanna see there face, b/c they know the struggles facing our country, and to have someone represent not only them, but people of this country en masse and not be white is tough.(considering every president this coun try has ever known has been white..)
5. Geraldine Ferraro
If he were white, he woulndt be this far.
4. W.
Thanks to him, this is all possible. Being the worst POTUS ever, he pretty much made the Congress , the Senate, and his chair all turn blue, and in some cases, by margins that can potentially withstand a veto. He's even made the pick for VP in issue b/c of the actions of is corporate led, lobbyst tied vp in the past 8 yrs.
3. Lanny Davis.
I suspect he might vote for McCain. He now lives on Fox, unlike most Dem. surrogates bashes Barack repeatedly, and has chosen to raise the question in the Jewish community if Barack can be trusted. His math is flawed, and he supports a convention fight.
2. Sean Hannity.
If there were no Sean Hannity, you might not have ever heard of Rev.Wright. To this very day, Hannity is doing his best to paint Barack as an Afro-Centrist who's to far "LEFT" and will put this country in harms way. I was raised not to hate people, but im about as close to hate that a person can have when it comes to Hannity.
1. FOX NEWS.
The nomination of him, to me will signify the end of them. They pray on Democrats and push Right Wing Talking points 24/6 365. They hire Blue-dog/moderate dems whom they claim represent "balance" yet they fold to the right each and every time. I hope that if Baracks to win, he doesnt grant them 1 interview. I hate this channel, I hate there, shows, and I hate the views and opinions expressed on that channel.
Those receiving Honorable mention and who can potentially enter the list. Howard Wolfson, Bill Clinton, Pat Buchanon, Wolf Blitzer, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Liz Trotta, and Ted Nugent
The anti-war crowd is going to stick with Obama, but remember Kos proclaiming not so long ago that the activist wing 'owns the party.' My guess is that they will keep the pressure on Obama to keep his promise to pull out immediately.
He will try to backpedal out of his defeatist stance like he is trying (without success) to backpedal out of his 'no preconditions' position on Iran.
This pressure from the far-left will allow McCain to keep and hold the center on Iraq and national security. He will accuse Obama of being excessively pessimistic, inflexible, unmoved by new facts, and unwilling to admit error. He will also point out Obama's foreign policy inexperience by emphasizing Obama's misunderstanding of history with regards to negotiating with Iran.
McCain staked out the center long ago, and as long as progress continues in Iraq, Obama will find it hard to claim any of it for his own.
smoothie,
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched...you'll end up with egg on your face.
Apparently, if the tape ever comes to light, her words will sound something like:
Whitey cut folks off Medicaid?
Whitey let New Orleans drown?
Whitey do nothing about Jena?
Whitey put us in Iraq for no reason?
...when the intended message is,
Why'd he cut folks off Medicaid?
Why'd he let New Orleans drown?
Why'd he do nothing about Jena?
Why'd he put us in Iraq for no reason?
I say again, I honestly believe that if Barack were in Hillary's position, we wouldnt have even got to the RBC. There's no doubt in my mind that he wouldve stopped his campaign post IN/NC.
I dont think he's the kind of person that would put his destiny in front of whats best for the party.
I do however stand by Rikyrah's comments had this been the other way. But to add to it further, it would signify the end of blacks and the democratic party.
I take issue with your list....it's not fair and balanced.
We know that liberals pray for the downfall of Hannity, FOX News, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc daily.
You'd be better off listing them under "right wing media" and calling it a day.
S,
If Obama pulls out when it's clear we're winning, he's not re-elected. One, that move would piss off a majority of the military/veteran establishment. Two, something would happen during his administration in Iraq/the Middle East that would cause him to, at the very least, throw cruise missiles there...which then leads to the "well, if we hadn't left, we wouldn't be doing this" argument.
6. CBC.
They cut both ways. First when he does get it, I wanna see them shuffle around looking for excuses as to why they didnt support him.
Oh, but they already have. Donald Payne was on The Joe Madison Show this morning saying that he decided to support Hillary before he knew Obama was considering a run for the presidency. When he saw that Obama was a strong candidate, he decided to stay neutral.
I call bs.
1. Everybody knew Obama was going to run since his speech at the DNC in '04.
2. It's not only about CBC supporting Hillary but it's also about them remaining SILENT when Hillary and Bill started race baiting. Payne thinks that his being neutral will give him a pass, but it doesn't. You weren't neutral, Mr. Payne. You were a COWARD.
Are you assuming Obama will win with his current strategy, or that he will win if the anti-war left will allow him to move to the center?
If he wins, he will have to say in Iraq. Like it our not, our country's national security and stability is inextricably tied to the region and has been since the end of WWII.
If this were flipped, and Obama had lost ELEVEN IN A ROW...
It wouldn't have even gotten to IN/NC.
Chuck Todd said the night of the WISCONSIN PRIMARY that, mathematically, THIS WAS OVER.
He said it, that night, with regards to PLEDGED DELEGATES.
Since then, this has been the MSM in collusion with the FRAUD of Camp Hillpatine.
The math has been the math since WISCONSIN.
And, if the situations were reversed, ALLLLL we would have heard post Wisconsin, was about THE MATH.
His current strategy loses. Plain and simple.
Any modification to his current strategy might lose as well. You can only do so much "clarification" when you position from day one has been that we should've left Iraq.
On the tape...talk about the semantics argument from hell: if Michelle comes off as asking questions "why'd he" is a valid assumption to what she's saying. If they come off as statements, however.....
Rikyrah/Smoothie,
Saw your answers....waiting for Nquest's before I respond.....
Here is an op-ed in Newsweek discussing strategy for taking the states in the south.>
Don't forget Joe Scarborough!
I purposly left off the Wis. issue. Even though the math clearly proved it was over, just in the slight chance that she mounted her 10 st. comeback I figured the arguement to stay in wouldve continued.
Sepia
Sadly none of the CBC face heavy competition in there chairs thus they will continue to mis-represent us.
D.
Much like the Right say's left wing media when slamming any and all who dont agree with them. They even take it a step further and say the entire media is LEFT..Even though FOX and certain elements of CNN lean clearly right. Plus my list has people on the left on it...I doubt if you run a list for McCains you would put that much from the right..(ron paul, barr do not count)
It's not just Fox News that says there's a liberal media bias: Rasmussen had a poll on it last week (I'll link as soon as I can find it in my email....).
O HELL NAWL Hillary Supporters!
I know, I know... YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOUR POSITION!! You can't show how Wright's or Cone's quoted statements amount to KKK-like racism. And even more, you can't deny the IDENTITY POLITICS the fingerpointers pointing at women and African-Americans engage in in the process of bemoaning their identity politics.
I mean, these are the people who brought you THE ANGRY WHITE MALE. WTF is that but IDENTITY POLITICS?
WTF is your non-response but a TAP OUT!! Silly Rabbit. Save those dummie tricks for kids.
The problem is you DON'T KNOW, DON'T KNOW. And you didn't know what the hell you were getting into, dumbazz.
Neither Wright nor Cone espoused the racism/prejudice you claimed they did. That's why you're all choked up. Nothin' but SHORT POSTS now AND ignorant, and dare I say PREJUDICED, assumptions from you now.
I know, I know.... I know I didn't say "it's impossible for African-Americans to be racist."
ENOUGH SAID!!
The mischaracterization, exaggeration or omission of facts in order to advance a narrative based on the political leanings of writers and producers in order to support the ideology or agenda of a particular political party undermines the credibility of news organizations.
For example, let's take the economy:
FACT: Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.9 percent in the first quarter of 2008,
according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter,
real GDP increased 0.6 percent.
FACT: This data shows an INCREASE in the GDP.
FACT: In macroeconomics, a recession is generally associated with a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.
So, a clear look at the numbers, coupled with the definition of recession, would show that the US economy is NOT in a recession. The FACT is, the economy GREW.
Yet, the media is responsible for reinforcing the notion that the US economy is 'slipping into a recession' or 'may slip into a recession,' or already IS in a recession.
Why is a negative perception of the economy advanced by the media?
Why does the media attempt to lead viewers, readers and listeners to draw an incorrect conclusion?
Politically, who benefits from news of economic growth?
There are countless 'news' stories that choose to interject analysis and lead readers, listeners and viewers to conclusions that benefit a particular political ideology, party or agenda.
Why not just allow news consumers to absorb and process the facts and draw their own conclusions?
Come back!! Still waiting for answers!!
I don't do that "let me frame this argument for you" stuff your lame, telegraphin', skill-less azz can't help but do.
Put more diplomatically... I don't believe I've ever talked Democrats and Republicans with you and I know I've spoken against your need to cast people in your ignorant right vs. left dichotomy just so you can have something to speak against.
Let me tell you something you should have figured out long ago. My motto is:
F-ck A Democrat and MuthaF-ck A Gottdamn Republican.
So what the hell do you think a question about labeling Republicans as racists means to me when my pov on Reps and Dems is that of Malcolm X's noted "wolf vs. fox" idea.
Know who the hell you're speaking to and know that you have no conversation with me when you're stuck on that stupid sh*t.
Like a trip to Japan, your country azz better learn language. We don't speak dillbilly here, at least I don't.
Sorry, Rikyrah. I'll be nice from now on. :)
Black folks who are applying for SBA loans and corporate grants.
So holla at a brotha when the economic news turns good ... we needs to catch that hook up.
Actually, that time, I just wanted to know what you thought.
For all your talk about "lame and skill-less," I have yet to see you answer a question in something resembling a thought-out matter.
But if that's your MO, hey, what can I say? :)
I've noticed she has been missing from cable news networks for a couple of months. Has she been fired?
I didn't see anything sexist about what the DNC came up with. Really, I'm not sure how you could jump to that particular conclusion.
Giving the nomination to Clinton would be strategically stupid. Would it be racist? Were she viable, maybe. Since she's not-by anyone's account, at this point-I'm not sure. Of course, then you could argue that because she's not viable, it can't be anything BUT racism.
Yeah, the use of the Southern Strategy hasn't really helped the GOP shed its historically racist image. I wonder, though (which would've been question #4), how much the DNC's throwing the racism flag around is an attempt to cover up their own racial issues, which are being brought to the spotlight by Clinton/Obama.
For all the talk about the GOP being inherently "racist," at least their position is (somewhat) clear: they'll take the black vote if they can; if not, they don't feel they need it.
See, that's the dillbilly in you.
(1) Answer question with a Chris Matthews question:
When and where has any of the claims of sexism shown in the polls and, more importantly, the voting? The DNC meeting was about how to recognize votes via compromise to be fair to both candidates.
Just like your left-right bs. Such a DUMB AZZ QUESTION does not compute with me. WTF are you talking about? Sexism? WHERE? HOW?
Say what you think or STFU!
(2) See Rikyrah's substance based response and learn how to speak the language. Dillbilly is not accepted. With all of the statements made by party officials about the tone of the campaign and wanting to wrap this primary season up as soon as possible ALL during times when Obama was clearly in the lead... Well, your question just doesn't even make sense; for one, because I don't play hypothetical games with someone I was NOT having a conversation with.
Ask me a question about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with. I don't speak dillbilly.
(3) See above (both my statement on your left-right bs AND "no scripts allowed" part printed directly above).
Hmmm... Let's see... When have I made a statement on any topic about what Democrats or any other group/org. "have played to the Black populace" for or on how either Democrats or Republicans are labeled?
Repeated for you digestion:
Ask me a question about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with.
This is your official notice that your question asking privileges with me are revoked due to a known history of your script wielding and non-reciprocation.
I believe it was you who just up and told me you were a conservative (like I gave a damn). During that time, I know I asked you several questions ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID. I'm selfish like that. I expect you to be like me and keep your mf statements to WHAT I SAY.
I am not a stand in for some generic Democrat LABEL you want to attach or any of your ignorant "well, someone I'd group with you said it, so let me ask you about them" type of bs. I expect people who engage me to have more skill and less dill.
FYI
________________
PS:
A successful "call-out" occurs when someone points out an actual hypocrisy, inconsistency, contradiction, etc. in a person's position, ask the person to address and that person doesn't because they don't want to own up to their contradictions, etc.
Don't try to grandstand with me, dillbilly, when none of those elements are there for you to be "waiting" on my answers.
Which is to say, all other times your MO is such that you deserve every last STFU you get.
Personally, I don't give a damn if you "want to know what I think." Part of that is because of your MO. The other part is I don't speak Dillbilly or practice Dillbilly culture.
These strange ways of soliciting people's opinions you have with your bs script in hand is foreign to me and, actually, a sign of poor your backward was.
Perhaps a "Nquest, I was wondering what you thought about X and here is why" would help. That's just the way I get down. You, you're stuck on that alien stupid sh*t. Like I give a f-ck about your Republican vs. Democrat construct.
Dude, it's not even that serious.
More than likely, this is the point in the conversation where you attempt to claim that you've shut me down. That train's never late.
So, to assuage your probably somewhat fractured ego, you can have this one. I hope this small victory makes up for some incident of neglect somewhere. Besides, I like to actually try to learn something when I read here.
Let's agree to not agree-on anything-and just go from here.
Sorry if this offends anyone....
What do you have to say about the Willie Horton and Welfare Queen racists tactics employed by Republicans/conservatives?
You mentioned the DNC meeting:
Do you think anything like that would ever happen in the Republican party? (The other historically racist White political party).
_____________________________
Also, what do you think about the Republicans lack of respect for African-American voters when the best they can do to try to attract African-Americans voters back to the party they once belonged to in large numbers with WEDGE ISSUE politics that has no regard for the full slate of issues important to African-Americans and the priority at which the Black political consensus places those issues?
I mean, I've heard current Black Republicans from Lynn Swann to Wayne Perryman express their displeasure with the curious lack of support they get from their White Republican party brethren when they, of all people, should be the ones supported in their efforts to increase the number of Black Republicans.
Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities. In addition to help raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to help out black officials who endorsed her and are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.
Racial Uproar Reignited Could Threaten Obama's Chances in November
You're speaking Dillbilly again. It's not that hard:
"Nquest, I was wondering what you thought about X and here is why"
That would help me understand and "learn" where you are coming from. But don't let the conviction door knob hit you. Your type litters the internet. You want to frame the debate and lots of people are stuck on left-right stupid just like you and what you do is constantly what they do.
You act like this is Crossfire of something where person X is the representative for the Democrats and has to answer for what Democrats do and you're dillbilly Y , the right-leaning moderator dishing out the questions.
And with the way you and S carry on... Ya'll put fractured "us against the world" egos on the map.
((((More than likely, this is the point in the conversation)))
Silly Dillbilly. That was the whole point. I was not engaged in a conversation with you and your questions didn't engage the conversation I was having.
Simply put, there was no conversation and, speaking dillybilly, you have no conversation for me.
This is not that hard:
Ask me a question about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with.
I suppose I should copy and paste your responses to me to answer your question.
(Before you flip, chil. You deserved that.)
Question 1: I acknowledge those things happened. I don't make an attempt to apologize for them or explain them away. Personally, I disagree with those tactics.
Question 2: Hell, no. Under no circumstances. If a Republican tried that stunt, they'd be laughed out of the party.
Question 3: I've said before that I don't think the Republican Party doesn't respects the African American electorate. I think that the conservative message-you can have the world, IF you're willing to work for it-flies in the face of some African Americans because it forces them to look at the world outside of their own existence.
Thoughts, comments, or-in your case-cuss words?
At least I'm getting a laugh from all this. :)
I've said before that I don't think the Republican Party doesn't respects the African American electorate. I think that the conservative message-you can have the world, IF you're willing to work for it-flies in the face of some African Americans because it forces them to look at the world outside of their own existence.
I know that Republicans prefer to condescendingly offer the "if you work hard ..." line based upon the default presumption that Black people don't work hard, but D ...
I'm surprised you trotted that out here. At JJP. With educated and well-read Black (and White and Brown) people.
Sexism does not need to actually exist in this primary, in order for women to feel that Hillary has been treated unfairly.
An entire generation of women have been raised on the notion that this country is sexist, and that this sexism is endemic. Women have been oppressed, disadvantaged and excluded from main-stream politics, corporate boardrooms, etc. PRIMARILY because of sexism. They have spent their lives viewing the world through this prism.
Feminism as a social movement, is different from left-wing or fundamentalist Christian activism, in that politics and personal being are virtually inseparable. So, through this self-designated identity, an attack on Hillary is seen as an attack on all women.
This is key to understanding the difference between identity politics on the left and right.
On the right,one may CHOOSE, as an INDIVIDUAL, to join the NRA or the Praise the Lord Club.
Not so on the left. One is, simply by the circumstances of one's birth, a member of a marginalized, group. By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent).
So viewing the primary through the Democrat feminist prism we can acknowledge that in exchange for their support, women were PROMISED equality and the party is OBLIGATED to make good on its promise. But here comes the young turk, Obama, first and foremost, A MAN, with obvious charm and style, but, in their view, no experience, leap frogging over the woman who has been paying her dues, taking s***, but working hard because she has been PROMISED BY THE PARTY that Democrats will elect a WOMAN.
But now this promise is competing and conflicting with another promise, the implied promise that the democrats will elect a BLACK president.
Such is the trap of identity politics and the Democrat party has put itself in the position of promising the same job to two equally deserving candidates.
I've said that before.
And if you were to ask, I'd say that the statement doesn't apply to JJP's readers, based on my conversations here. With a few changes to the details of the conservative message, I'd bet a lot more of the readers here would consider themselves conservative.
That said, there is still a segment of the population that it does apply to.
But maybe you can explain why you asked the question and how it's supposed to make sense when you acknowledge how the Republican party uses racist tactics and, beyond that, have little regard/appreciation for the world the African-American electorate lives in.
Simply, what was the point of your original question (#3)? How exactly would the Black populace by "played" by a "label" that fits just what you acknowledged as the facts about the Republican party?
You have got to know that I don't do self-loathing. So I'm trying to figure out your point and laughing won't help you make it. As it stands now, your question was baseless on 2 counts.
(1) It had no basis or reason for being asked based on something I said about the racism of the Republican party or Blacks being played by the Democrat party. No. There was no such conversation going on at the time.
(2) Your idea that the Black populace being played assumed that the label didn't fit or you have some explaining to do. What was your point? To try to use my answer to #2 as something that was supposed to be a revelation to me in #3?
Seriously... you have got to have more skills than that. Something other than your ignorant left-right assumptions.
And what happened to the sexism conversation? And what was the
"Come back!! Still waiting for answers!!" stuff all about?
What's that? Dillbilly-speak for "I just wanted to know what you thought."
Oh and my motto, it counts for card carrying liberals and conservatives too.
Get a clue.
Given my take on the identity politics that exists within the Democrat party, I do not think that d is off base.
The Republican party is speaking to indivduals, and in exchange for their support, is offering individuals, not a group, opportunity and success.
You assert that d's comments about working hard implies that ALL black people do not work hard. You thereby are unable to separate yourself from the self-designated group. Some blacks work hard, others do not, yet rather than separate the group in that way, you choose to accuse d of making a mass generalization.
Until black people CHOOSE party affiliation based on their INDIVIDUAL reasons and impulses, they will always feel more 'at home' in the Democrat party.
----------------
Hell to the naw. Obama should not endorse anyone and let the chips fall where they may. You had black Clinton surrogates sitting on CNN, etc. aiding and abetting the race baiting, in some cases actively participating in it (Tubbs Jones), but Clinton wants Obama to "save" them? So they can sabotage him from the halls of Congress? No, if the will of the people is that Tubbs Jones and her ilk have to be swept away, so be it. I'm not mad that they supported Clinton; that's their right. I'm mad they sat back while she and her campaign all but said the N-word and they just laughed and cackled and defended that crap like they were the 2008 version of ManTan and Sleep N Eat. Naw, they gotta go. Good riddance.
Black people already consider themselves conservatives based on their own cultural messages and values. Everywhere I go on the net, Black people make the distinction between being socially conservative vs. party/politically conservative. So wth are you talking about?
You feeling lonely? :)
And why are you concerned about the conservative message? Why not get Afrocentric with it and speak Black people's "special human truth" (that has due regard for all the Black particulars) instead of hoping someone else will change their message for you or whatever your "change details" comment entailed?
Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
Clinton Summons Top Donors, Supporters For Tuesday Speech
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust buzz up June 2, 2008 02:24 PM
Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.
Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities, according to reliable sources. In addition to seeking Obama's help in raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to assist black officials who endorsed her and who are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.
"This has never happened before," one donor said, referring to the personalized request by email to attend the event in New York Tuesday night.
Obama is expected to claim enough delegates to put him over the top that night at a separate event in Minneapolis.
Earlier in the day it was reported that Clinton staffers were being urged by the campaign's finance department "to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week," another sign that the run at the White House was nearing an end. In addition, Politico wrote that members of Clinton's advance staff had received calls and emails Sunday night, summoning them to New York City and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending.
-----------------------------
I say help with her debts no Vice President and as far as her African American super delegates Stephanie Tubbs Jones HAS GOT TO GO.
For what it's worth, HuffPo says all signs point to this thing ending tomorrow. . .
Clinton Expected to Suspend Campaign and Endorse Obama
Again, I'll believe it when I see it. This is ONLY speculation.
But the report says all signs suggest she's prepared to make a big speech tomorrow night in her home state of NY.
Sources say she's negotiating post-primary activities with the Obama campaign. She has no plans past Wednesday, and she's in continued discussions with Obama to help repay some of her debt.
Also ***and isn't this an interesting nugget*** she apparently wants Obama's help to give her black supporters (think Stephanie Tubbs-Jones-types) cover when they go back for re-election.
Again, take it for what it's worth. We've seen these stories before only to have her do a 180 at the last minute.
I'll keep my fingers crossed.
LOL. . . Dang! You beat me to it.
So with that said-that black people already consider themselves socially conservative-why do you think they align with the democratic party, if it flies in the face of what they believe?
I'm not concerned with "the conservative message." Hell, most conservatives don't know what THE conservative message is anymore (that's a problem in itself, but a different discussion).
To me, conservatism has no "special human truth" for black people or anyone else. The message is simple: the government will provide for your basic rights, welfare, and security. What the individual-regardless or race or any other aspect-does with those provisions is up to them. What the government will NOT do is hold your hand/breast feed you (whichever anology better shows the point).
Glad we're civil again...thought I was gonna have to challenge you to a boxing match. :)
Obama, inside his 'magic bubble' will come to their aid and will be greeted with effusive adulation by the adoring throngs...
The flip side of that, keeping D's "change details" idea in mind:
The Republican party will never attract a significant amount of Black voters until they drop that European based focus on INDIVIDUALISM. That's part of that lack of respect for the culture and things African-Americans deem import.
Hell, there are even polls that stipulate to it. And it's not like Black people have a dying need to be Republican. Black people want political efficacy and a chance to be able to influence the political process that has so much influence over their lives.
What you saw at the DNC rules committee was, with the number of Black members on the committee, was the chance to do that, no matter how the chips fell.
By your comments, S... I can safely guess that you're not a Bookerista. They seem to understand this back cultural concept.
A really interesting theory about the alleged Michelle Obama tape, which could explain a lot, from the blog Booman Tribune. Michelle, offering a speech critical of President Bush, offers a refrain of "why'd he" — the words "why did he" mushed together — that sounds like "whitey" on the tape.
Apparently, if the tape ever comes to light, her words will sound something like:
Whitey cut folks off Medicaid?
Whitey let New Orleans drown?
Whitey do nothing about Jena?
Whitey put us in Iraq for no reason?
...when the intended message is,
Why'd he cut folks off Medicaid?
Why'd he let New Orleans drown?
Why'd he do nothing about Jena?
Why'd he put us in Iraq for no reason?
Mon Jun 02, 08:27:00 AM 2008"
You're missing the point...why in the hell would a Harvard educated attorney and professional and the wife of a US Senator and presidential candidate sit on a panel alongside one of the most controversial figures in the United States to discuss highly charged racial issues and speak in a manner beneath the dignity of herself and her own accomplishments and position but especially her husbands?! It doesn't matter if she was ranting "whitey" or "why'd he", it would be an act of sabotage or mind-blowing stupidity!
I've had friends/family suggest that she has been attempting to undermine his candidacy, perhaps subconsciously, with her numerous ill advised comments, but this would be inarguably deliberate and completely unforgivable.
While I join the chorus of Black voices who decry the undue scrutiny and double standards the media has subjected Senator Obama to with respect to his church, I would be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little pissed with the Obamas for not realizing what scrutiny the church and other associations would bring.
What issues do you feel are important to the African American community that the GOP doesn't respect/pay attention to/etc?
Peharps the reason why so many intelligent African-Americans push for policies that benefit the whole group as opposed to just themselves is that reality of African-Americans both historically and currently is different from white America. We can talk about individuality till we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that when Britney Spears or M&M; does something outlandish it is NOT a reflection on White America. But when 50 cents does something outlandish it is apparently a reflection on black America. I personally do not agree with that mind set, but just because I do not agree with it does not mean that is not the case.
Unfortunately, African-Americans are not percieved on their own individual merits, they are perceived by the words and actions of other African-Americans. This is why Obama is not being judged by his words, both written and verbal, or by his actions. Rather he is being judged by the words of Reverend Wright et al.
Junglecat
Like I just said, they even have polls stipulating to it and the INDIVIDUALISM bs ain't happening. It's a "cruel jest", as MLK would say, to present INDIVIDUALISM as a policy response or "solution" for something the group, not just individuals, were/are subjected to.
Obviously you were trying to FRAME the issue your way once again when there was no mistaking what I was saying in terms of the GOP not respecting the full range of issues important to African-Americans.
And your question damn sure makes no sense when you have to talk about "changing the details of the White conservative message." What part of the distinction don't you understand?
I most definitely didn't say the Democratic party "flies in the face of what they believe." I insisted that there is a range of issues important to African-Americans who don't just believe in things socially conservative. They also believe in social justice.
There is no contradiction there. So why are you puzzled and what's makes it so hard for you to keep up?
Black people make the distinction between being socially conservative vs. party/politically conservative.
_____________________________________
If more black voter were to align themselves more as individuals, based on their 'social conservatism', thereby joining the Republican party, I think we would being to see the end of divisive partisan politics.
I am not proposing that we abandon the discourses of oppression, justice, equality, rights and so on but through our shared interests as individuals that we can reform education by promoting school choice, stimulate economic advancement and the accumulation of wealth through low taxes and limited government, save the environment by encouraging our free markets to meet our demand for more efficient and independent sources of energy, etc.
The biggest gap in our country is partisan and it is due in large part by the prominent role of identity politics in the governing process.
--------------------
In other words, it's black folks' fault there are partisan politics. If only black people would come on over to the Republicans, partisan politics would cease to exist.
OK.
That's some irony for your azz and some bs too.
What you just described is a no win situation. The very people INDIVIDUALISM is preached to just can't be considered, as you say, on their own individual merits.
Do you even understand the words (from both statements) that are coming out of your mouth?
Here we go....again:
Let's talk about framing: did I say that you said "flies in the face of what they believe?" No, I said that it flies in the face of what they believe.
My question for you, then, was this:
If black people consider themselves-as you suggested-socially conservative-why would they then choose to associate with a political party that does not-as I suggested-hold any beliefs that would be considered socially conservative?
I'm starting to think I have to speak slowly for you.
Black social conservatives know sometimes police act based on prejudice. White social conservatives believe the police are always right. Black social conservatives want the Black under employed to be educated and have good jobs. White social conservatives want to help the deserving poor. Some White social conservatives believe the confederate flag is no big deal. Black social conservatives ..., Well, you get my drift.
So with that said-that black people already consider themselves socially conservative-why do you think they align with the democratic party, if it flies in the face of what they believe?
First, I didn't say Black people's support for the Democrat party "flies in the face of what they believe." That was the language you used to describe how the Republicans disrespect the Black electorate, not mine (about the Democrats). Straight DILL and no skill, D. I'm tired of feeling embarrassed for you.
Second, I mentioned that there are a range of issues that the GOP doesn't respect, particularly the priority-importance African-Americans place on those issues. The GOP uses WEDGES ISSUES assume that since they work with White folk, they'll work with Black as well. That's dill, too.
Final point, there is no conflict. Being socially conservative (which, again, is not to be confused with being politically conservative, you equivocating fool, you) is not mutually exclusive of the social justice, economic and equality issues we are all well aware of in the form of affirmative action and the desire for the same tool (government) that caused group disadvantaged to be used in remedying it.
You said, and I quote: "I mentioned that there are a range of issues that the GOP doesn't respect, particularly the priority-importance African-Americans place on those issues."
In your opinion, what are those issues?
Do you believe that only the federal government can adequately address social injustice?
If you see the government as more of the solution than the problem, then I can see why you are a Democrat.
But, IMO, the Democrat party has been in charge of social constructivism since FDR.
The Democrats have created more government entitlement programs that keep recipients dependent on government, without solving the overarching problems inherently behind the programs.
Welfare fostered dependency on government and contributed to the breakdown of the black family. Race and gender based Affirmative Action and support for extending benefits and citizenship to illegal immigrants has increased resentment among Americans. This resentment is on display within your own party.
The Democrat party has built itself up by promising various marginalized groups that they have the cure for what ails them, that they alone, through big government, can provide the solutions. As long as black voters continue to buy into that, many will have to lead a 'political double life.'
What did I tell you?
Ask me questions about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with.
You better get some hearing aids or something.
Can anyone recommend a good, (somewhat) non-partisan book on the economy?
Want to do more than just read Greenspan's. ;)
No, we are not going to take anything. You will:
Ask me a question about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with.
Or you will STFU talking to me. Really, it's not that hard. It's a very civil and respectful way to have a conversation.
And stop acting like your a Grade A dumbazz. You know the issues the GOP strikes out with insofar as Black voters are concerned.
You want to have a conversation with me (and that's the way it is, not the other way around), you better have a point to it and you better come right out with it. Instead of trying to play games with FRAMES. This is real simple:
Ask me a question about something I say. Not about some script you come to this blog with.
Add to that: come out with what you want to say. You aren't capable of providing steps for me to follow.
My apologies. I assumed your post was S'.
You said:
"Ask me a question about something I say...Or you will STFU talking to me,"
...after I asked you a question about what you said.
After this, I'm not responding to anything else you have to say on this thread.
But please, look at what you said, and what I asked you earlier. There's a disconnect there.
With all the ranting and babbling you’ve been doing today, humble me thought that you might need a break, i.e. you need to relax, so here is something to help you do it:
In memory of Bo Diddley
Do you believe in asking a question that makes sense? Apparently not.
What did I say about social (in)justice? If you can't engage what I say don't talk to me.
IS THAT CLEAR??
Being socially conservative is not mutually exclusive of the [important] social justice, economic and equality issues... and the desire for the same tool (government) that caused group disadvantaged to be used in remedying it.
Let me say that again:
the desire for the same tool (government) that caused group disadvantaged to be used in remedying it
That's one of them RESPONSIBILITY things, a message conservatives like to talk about, right?
Okay. So what's the problem?
((((I can see why you are a Democrat.))))
Who said I was a Democrat?
(((IMO, the Democrat party has been in charge of social constructivism since FDR.)))
STFU!! I didn't ask you about your opinion of the Democratic party and you must be suffering from hearing loss too.
Talking about what the Democrats did that you don't like when they shared government with Republicans doesn't strength an argument against them or for the Republicans. It is a two-party system and they are both complicit in it all... just like the Iraq war.
What part of:
F-ck a Democrat and MuthaF*CK a Gottdamn Republican don't you understand?
This is a 3 dimensional world, S. Why are you so 2 dimensional and can't function without your partisan bias.
(((This resentment is on display within your own party.)))
My party? Which party is that? Signify it be quoting where I declared which party I was a card carrying member of or STFU!!!
Got to democraticunderground with that bs.
Think about it...
Black voters have a choice and they choose not to exercise it. Why? What do they believe about the Republican party? Why do they believe it?
Democrats rely on partisanship to advance to prove to their constituents that their agenda is 'right'. Identity politics demands that Democrats make promises to groups and when they fail to deliver or feel threatened, the opposition (Republicans) becomes the target and is chastised, demonized, 'we're right, they're wrong.'
All sensible discussion and moderate positions tend to disappear.
One example, school choice. School choice is roundly opposed by the teachers' union, which is 100% in the Democrat party. School choice could be a successful educational reform and is shown to have support among black voters, 85% in the Democrat party, but it will never happen, not because it is a bad idea, but because competing groups will be in conflict and the group that wields the most power, contributes the most money or protests the loudest will stifle debate or chastise the opposition.
Jan. 29, 2008
"Lawmakers in Albany were given a powerful reminder of the political danger of siding in favor of school choice measures when the state's largest teachers union yesterday endorsed the Republican candidate in an important special election that will take place next month for a seat in the state Senate."
Even a move of a significant number of black voters to register as independents would create competition for their votes.
As a free-market, capitalist, I believe competition is good, and addresses the needs of the individual and the group.
It would not end partisan politics, but it would go a long way in advancing the interests of education, economic opportunity and advancement, and a wide range of issue that are of concern to a majority of Americans.
Of course, Karmi's concession and desire not to carry on with that indefensible dumbsh*t was only a matter of time.
______________________
PS:
I'll help you find distractions or anything else you want to change the subject, Karmi. All you had to do was ask.
It's Democratic Party...not Democrat Party.
....that was kind of bugging me, my friend.
IMO, Democrats practice identity politics based on groups by nature of their birth. Republicans practice identity politics based on individuals choosing their group.
Both Democrats and Republicans have exploited identity politics for political gain.
It would follow then that independents who are aligned on a variety of issues, social and political, would wield the most influence.
You seem to speak of the concerns of blacks in monolithic terms. Do all black people have the same political priorities? What would those priorities be? Do any of these priorities intersect with conservative independents?
I would recommend:
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Written in 1946 it has been a guidebook through dozens of economic fallacies while also showing the logic of the free market.
Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. Explains the elementary principles of sound, free-market economics through criticisms and critiques of dozens of domestic and international economic policies, with historical examples.
How the Economy Works : An Investor's Guide to Tracking the Economy by Edmund A. Mennis. Describes how changes in the economic environment are measured. Economic statistics that bombard the public are explained in concise, readable form. He describes where the statistics come from, how they are derived, who produces them, where they are published and what they mean.
Hope this helps.
Hell yeah, he's passing..LOL
This has been a debate for years.
But, Bob's got too many ' Negroid' features, if you know what I mean..LOL
nquest, rikyrah, d, et al,
Sexism does not need to actually exist in this primary, in order for women to feel that Hillary has been treated unfairly.
dear s,
See, the reason I don't buy the ' sexism' whining is the following:
1. She had more advantages than ANY modern political Presidential candidate (even George W. Bush, because say what you want about Bush 41, he simply didn't get involved in 43's campaign the way that Bubba did Hillpatine's).
This includes ALL THE MEN WHO PRECEEDED HER in trying to get the Presidency.
2. Her willingness to play the White Woman Victim DECK -- not card, DECK.
3. We have a ClintonAttacksObama Wiki Incident Page that is up to FIFTY.
FIFTY.
I challenge ANY Hillpatine supporter to be able to compile a ClintonSexismWiki with 20 incidents, let alone 50. AND, I'll add that they can't find FIVE coming from the Obama camp.
I can't see how he can go from wild accusations to campaigning for Barack.
----------------
Hell to the naw. Obama should not endorse anyone and let the chips fall where they may. You had black Clinton surrogates sitting on CNN, etc. aiding and abetting the race baiting, in some cases actively participating in it (Tubbs Jones), but Clinton wants Obama to "save" them? So they can sabotage him from the halls of Congress? No, if the will of the people is that Tubbs Jones and her ilk have to be swept away, so be it. I'm not mad that they supported Clinton; that's their right. I'm mad they sat back while she and her campaign all but said the N-word and they just laughed and cackled and defended that crap like they were the 2008 version of ManTan and Sleep N Eat. Naw, they gotta go. Good riddance.
I'm with Town on this.
Obama needs to stand on the sidelines and let Black folk take care of the Clinton Negroes - PERIOD.
ESPECIALLY the ones who aided and abetted in the racebaiting, though all of them need to be hung out to dry.
I really appreciated you pointing out your political preferences.
I'm a Democrat, mostly. Though I believe I'd be happier being an Indenpendent.
Socially, I'm pretty conservative.
I don't have a gun, but will not take others and believe that gun laws only help the criminals.
I believe strongly in the institution of marriage, and how the lack of respect for that institution has harmed our community a great deal.
Abortion - I believe in a woman's right to choose, though I believe it her RESPONSIBLITY not to place herself in that position.
Gay rights - sort of middle of the road but completely against amending The Constitution with the DOMA. Don't mess with The Constitution.
I really appreciated your explanation of your political thought process.
So,then-considering what you believe-why are you a democrat?
fiscally liberal.
d,
I also don't think I'm an oddity. Black folk are the most conservative - socially - portion of the Democratic Party.
This is my position on guns, and a lot of the Black folk I talk to agree.
I'm not for taking anyone else's LEGAL guns from them.
I just want to know why these legal gun owners allow the scumbags to hide behind them and pimp them the way that they do, by hiding behind the mirage that if you have some registration of firearms, the world will come to an end.
I am against semi-automatic weapons though. The only point of them is to kill a whole lot of people. Only law enforcement should be able to have them. Anyone who pretends that they need them for hunting is a LIAR, because you wouldn't kill an animal with such a messy weapon.
So I guess she'll try to intimidate them from coming out for Barack tomorrow.
Gloria Borger, Hilary Rosen and Campbell are asking Roland(sole male and black) why Obama is limping across the finish line. Roland explains that some states are tailor-made for certain candidates. No one questioned why Hillary did so poorly in States Obama won blow-outs in.
It felt like a set up of the 3 white women. Of course, they had to show a clip of Pfleger. I wonder if they notice that Pfleger is white? They always seem put out by the congregation cheering in the background but not so much by Pfleger himself.
Despite all the preparations to the contrary. Hillary is not entirely done fighting. She will browbeat the SD's right to the last second. She can't convince them to endorse her, but she'll try to prevent them from coming out for Barack and delay his victory.
Here are a few articles of my own.
Marine 'lied' over Haditha deaths
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7426429.stm
The Iraq war: Counting the cost
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm
Toxic world fallout from Iraq invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7293689.stm
Excerpt:However, even if the war turns out to be "winnable", its critics dismiss any suggestion that it was "worth it".
Struggle for Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
In their view, the fact that a young male upstart was able to leapfrog over an older woman who had 'paid her dues' is in and of itself sexist.
Where the f*ck are the superdelegates??!
So, it's the night before the last primaries for Obama and Hillary, and what is the MSM talking about? BILL!
It's becoming apparent the Clinton's haven't been vetted. The GOP had no idea on how to attack Obama until Hillary showed them how. Republicans would be so happy to have Hillary on the ticket! They'd use Billary to take him down.
Hi. Barack deserves to be able to declare victory. If he doesn't reach the number by tomorrow, he might not get that chance. Really, should the Superdelegates be making all their decisions based on what Hillary and her supporters will think?
Why?
I just don’t see how such an inexperienced candidate can rein in his wife, curb his own slips, monitor all of his past dubious role models, and avoid the growing divide between utopian rhetoric and pretty 'typical politician' tactics and embarrassing past associations. And I don’t think he has yet to figure out that Republican and independents' unhappiness with Bush’s spending, appointments, and inability to articulate a message, and defend himself does not really equate to a desire for billions in new taxes and unworkable new programs.
A Clinton donor tells me that on a conference call today with major fundraisers this afternoon, Harold Ickes told them Clinton isn't planning to drop out. He pressed donors to stay unified, and reviewed tactical options, including challenging the Michigan delegation.
State finance committees are also circulating letters to deliver to Clinton tomorrow in New York, and I've obtained a draft of the Illinois finance committee's letter, being circulated by a Clinton fundraising aide, Rafi Jafri, which stresses a fight until the convention, and a resolution in "August, and no earlier."
You seem to speak of the concerns of blacks in monolithic terms.
S, you ARE a stupid mf scramblin', trying to find a point like a starved squirrel trying to find a nut. What that you say?
Monolith??
You're the "your party" mf who throws that sh*t out like the old standard "you people." So stop trying to project your f-ck ups on me.
How the hell you're going to try to pin some "monolith" stuff on me when I stated how I guess you're not a BOOKERISTA?
BOOKERISTA = people who are, per the Booker Rising blog, "black moderates and black conservatives."
I also mentioned Black Republicans Lynn Swann and Wayne Perryman, the author of the book Unfounded Loyalty: An In-Depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats.
Those things and the very explicit fact that I used the phrase "THE BLACK POLITICAL CONSENSUS" makes your statement fraudulent and questions like this:
Do all black people have the same political priorities?
Utterly STUPID and baseless! S, you are the dullest knife.
Goodbye.
(()) Until black people CHOOSE party affiliation based on their INDIVIDUAL reasons and impulses
(()) As long as black voters continue to buy into that, many will have to lead a 'political double life.'
(()) Black voters have a choice and they choose not to exercise it.
Why, S, you seem to speak as if Black voters are a monolith.
Might I say that I was LMAO with Hill Harper. I love him. I'll say it:
'Clean, neat, crisp....AND A FLAG PIN'
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Go Hill!
I LOL just thinking about it.
But, Ed Schultz just threw down completely.
among the MANY lies told by Camp Hillpatine, the biggest had to be that she was ' truly vetted'.
BULLSHIT!
5 Things. Don't even count Bill's below-the-belt-extracurriculars.
1. Full revealing of ALL her earmarks.
2. What's in the 18 million LEFT OUT of the tax returns?
3. What's in the Ron Burkle Partnership? What did he have to do to get it?
4. Donor list for the Clinton Library
5. Donor list for the Clinton Foundation
Those 5- and the GOP wouldn't even have to tell us whose been flying with Bill on those private planes.
Who are they trying to kid anyway? Sexual predators don't change their ways just like that. We know Bill's been up to no good.
Quote: “Tomorrow is the last day of the primaries and the beginning of a new phase in the campaign. After South Dakota and Montana vote I will lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama will lead in the delegate count. The voters will have voted and so the decision will fall to the delegates empowered to vote at the Democratic Convention.”
You seem to be more interested in making snarky comments than engaging in a dialogue or debate.
Good night.