-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/09/obamamccain-the-double-standard-journalistic-complicity/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
For the past 19 months every aspect of Obama's life has been scrutinized and torn apart. His faith, his race, his patriotism, his attire, his wife, his family and not once has he whined about how the media was picking on him. He responded to the questions and criticisms and never lost his cool. Since the introduction of Gov Palin I have seen Republicans angry and yelling that anyone dares to question her credentials or speak about her life. Why does she not get the scrutiny that every other candidate gets ? John McCain and the Republicans don't get this angry when they scrutinize and talk about John McCain. Maybe he should become the vice presidential candidate and put her on top of the ticket. He appears to be holding onto her coattails anyway.
I'm 41 years old and I cannot recall when the religious right embraced unwed teenage mothers but now that the teenager in question is the daughter of vice presidential candidate who supports their views, teenage motherhood is something we should all support and embrace. When the central characters of this discussion were thought to be minorities, the discussion was more about poor parenting, lack of values and morals, absentee fathers, and just plain dysfunction but now it is just another lifestyle choice ( afterall she did not abort). I don't believe that a person's children or family should be a part of the discussion, but Gov Palin put it out there and is using her status as a mother as one of her credentials so it is fair game. Honestly, if Obama's children were of age and one of those girls got pregnant would there be a drive to embrace her and cheer her choice not to abort. I don't think there would be, it would be one more thing to assess Obama's character and criticize him as a father.
It doesn't matter who you support but the focus should be on the issues and not all of the other stuff that is flying. It's a known factor in a debate, when your opponent does not have anything to say about the issues, the opponent attacks the person. All I have seen since the RNC are attacks on Obama's character, ridicule about his life experiences, and a self reported biography. It was very disturbing to me to watch person after person ridicule and laugh at Obabam's community organizing experience but we are supposed to believe that being a mother of 5 is experience enough to be the vice president. I know many women see themselves in Gov Palin in the sense of a working mother who is raising children but what is missing from the conversation is African American women, Latino women, and other minority women. I am frustrated to continually hear how White women respond to her. Are there any other women in this country who are important ?
It is time to talk about the issues and put Gov Paliln's record under the microscope. It is time for her to publicly state her positions on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, funding for special education, sex education, secession of Alaska from the United States, the Iraq war, economic plans for the future, housing crisis, education, crime, health care, etc Right now she is all pomp and circumstance and it is time for some substance. We are supposed to be believe that she is going to be tough on corporations, lobbyists, and negotiate with other world leaders but the big ole bad media intimidates her ? The media needs to step it up and stop treating the pit bull with lipstick with kid gloves.
Why waste your energy? Put the person on ignore, because what I've seen in this one thread tells me the person brings nothing of relevance to the table. If the person cannot educate you, why waste any time and energy on him/her. That is time and energy expended that cannot be recaptured. IGNORE! IGNORE! IGNORE!
Why assume that refuting Karmi's argument has the aim of changing his mind? It doesn't make sense. The assumptions you make and the argument you make is from a "narrow frame of reference."
I mean, given this blog and the nature of the presidential campaign so many of us are commenting about... Well, let's apply your logic and ask those questions to the Obama campaign:
Why do you bother to respond to McCain/McCain's campaign?
Why waste your energy responding? It's energy (and ad money) that can't be recaptured. IGNORE! IGNORE! IGNORE!
Like I said... it doesn't make sense. Neither does this "if the person cannot educate you" idea of yours. A lot of these boards and blogs exists where the core membership consist of like-minded people who share/express their opinion with little or no "education" going on, per se. Things like that make your argument "thin."
So, since we're asking questions: why does it bother you that people have responded to Karmi? Really. Why? Because you wouldn't?
In the spirit of the growing theme here... why have this space where African-American political news junkies can come here and share in their joys and frustrations with this election when that time and energy could be put to "better" use doing (more) things like canvassing, etc., etc.?
Why, Jack and Jill, should just shut down or not post a single entry that doesn't have to do with the next campaign event or activity.
And back to the hypocrisy of your post... Why try to change other people's minds when your message is that there are some people who minds you just can't change? (That's if we take your problematic assumption that changing people's minds on a blog is the purpose for why whoever you're talking to post on this blog.)
What if Michelle had walked onto the convention stage with a quarter million dollars worth of diamonds on her ears....when many Americans are struggling to feed their families?
What if Obama had laughed derisively at community organizing?
What if there were rumours Obama called his wife a "c*nt"?
The responses were varied. I wrote down a few because I knew I wanted to post here:
1. Some whites called in and they were quite distressed about this.
2. Older white woman - nine in her family. She is for Obama. Four younger members for Obama. Other four are older and were for Barack's primary opponent. Now, two of these four say they are undecided while the other two say outright that they won't vote for Obama because he is black.
2. Most blacks who called in were livid, saying that in 2008 they should not be waking up to CSPAN and these types of discussions.
3. One black man said that he is concerned about the race factor. He tells a story that he is friends with a white family. Like, really close he said. Recently, they invited him to dinner. While at the table, he noticed that he had a different plate from everyone else but he thought nothing of it.
On his way home, he realized that he had left his watch. He went back and hey told him to go get it. When he went into the kitchen to pick up his watch, he saw that the plate that he had used was in the garbage can. These are people that i thought were my close friends, he said.
4. My personal favorite call was a white woman from Florida. She is supporting Obama. She says that people in her neighborhood are really prejudiced, BUT NOT HER. She is thinking of leaving that area because she can't live amongst such people. Then she goes on to say this and I swear to God - "Plus Obama isn't even black. He's half-white. Look at him. He looks more like a white man than a black man." While it is true that he has a white mother(he self-identifies as a "black man with a white mother")you see that she clearly rationalizes her support for him. Whatever works I guess. We need every vote.
T.
I'm serious when I say vote for the White half of him, if that makes you feel better White folks. if that is their rationalization, so be it. I just want the vote
Irwin A. Tank, author of Gook: John McCain's Racism, notes a long and sordid history of racism from the presumptive GOP nominee, including:
* McCain's use of the anti-Asian slur "gook" publicly for 27 years before dropping the use for his current Presidential run;
* McCain's endorsement of George Wallace Jr., a frequent speaker at white supremacist events;
* His vote against establishing a holiday for Martin Luther King's birthday and then another vote to rescind the holiday.
* In answering a question about divorced fathers and child support, McCain called the children "tar babies."
To current members of the media I say man up and report the facts and TRY to be objective.
I agree with this post wholeheartedly.....
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/michigan...
(scroll down)
Cash Mundy said...
Up until the election of Reagan, it was generally understood that leaders should be of some notable stature, if not the best and brightest. Much as dear old Nixon (to think we could ever look back to him as part of the Good Old days!) was a crook (by contemporary standards, not the debased practices of the present post-Republic era), he was not a stupid mediocrity. 1980 was the (probably already irreversible) turning-point, the Clinton years a punctuation, the (re)election of the Shrub the end.
Now the last best hope, well-spoken, obviously intelligent, possessed of charisma and youth and yet also Presidential gravitas unseen since Carter, is slipping in the polls for precisely these reasons, while McMonty Hall and his May-December sidekick promise whatever is behind Door Number Three."
My father once told me that he had heard it said that once the electorate realises it can vote itself money, a democracy is doomed. I would add that once they realise they can elect their worst instead of their best, it is buried.
The issue is they keep inviting the SAME people into the room to discuss the issues: Rev Al, Jesse, etc, and then want random pundits of color (not intellectually versed on the nature of prejudice and discrimination,) to speak about the issue. For this reason discussions become a mile wide and teaspoon deep. Journalists need to hire some consultants to help them understand the issue in general and help them apply the theories in their writing... Sort of what Jill Tubman did above.
Its a shame that journalists hired to write about society are not trained to see the cultural differences between the experiences of members of the same society.
Get new voices and elevate the discussion to a post civil rights dynamic. AND STOP INVITING MICHAEL ERIC DYSON TO THE TABLE. He talks tooo dang fast and he is trying to sound cool, not intelligible. Try Eduardo Bonilla- Silva, Pedro Noguera, Tim Wise, Mari Matsuda, Patricia Williams, or me:)
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
... which are great for highlighting racism and, matter of fact, can be used to create understanding don't even require such pre-developed understanding. And if striving for objectivity is a lost cause because there is no such thing given how it is a "myth", what the hell are you talking about when it comes to understanding racism/prejudice?
By your own definition, you're asking them to accept and use your apparent personal bias (since you can't possibly be "objective" about what racism is) as opposed to being conscious of their own racism (or tendency to not recognize it) and do whatever they can, in as much as they can, to both check for that bias and make sure that's not the way they're viewing the candidates...
The idea of striving for objectivity, again, would itself lend to the type of WHAT IF questions posed here. I'm afraid the idea of viewing STRIVING for objectivity as a "myth" (at least in the dismissive way you present it) is what has produced things like Fox News, IMO, the "fair and balanced" (objectivity?) slogan notwithstanding.
Also, I place, perhaps, a pretty high bar on what constitutes understanding racism which just so happens to be a position of mine informed by the many ways White people, e.g., who act like they understand racism -- you know, like the Clintons -- really don't understand racism.
So I figure it would be a whole lot easier for them to wrap their minds around the concept of striving for objectivity than to expect them to understand something centuries worth of history has shown that they either can't understand or don't give f-ck whether they do or don't.
It seems much more practical to appeal to their sorely lacking professionalism and whatever principles and professional standards they are supposed to be about than to have them fail miserably with the tall task of understanding racism and running the risk of frustrating me when they get it horribly wrong trying...
You said:
And if striving for objectivity is a lost cause because there is no such thing given how it is a "myth", what the hell are you talking about when it comes to understanding racism/prejudice?
By your own definition, you're asking them to accept and use your apparent personal bias (since you can't possibly be "objective" about what racism is) as opposed to being conscious of their own racism (or tendency to not recognize it) and do whatever they can, in as much as they can, to both check for that bias and make sure that's not the way they're viewing the candidates...
In science and research we must assert that there is not such thing as objectivity. Why? Because what we see as "normal" or "noteworthy," has everything to do with our personal lens. Our personal lens then has everything to do with the unique characteristics that make us unique individuals- for example I am a Puerto Rican female diversity trainer and educator... I may not have the same views of the other Puerto Rican females who have not read the things I have read or had the the opportunity to read the research that helps me stay competitive in my field. I cannot see things from a white male working class lens, because I do not have those experiences.
These are the reasons why there has been such a push (on the part of people of color) to diversify the media. To have variant perspectives. That said, it is true that whites who can develop empathy and see the nature of oppression (ie racism) are more likely to question their own methodology/ process to formulating a question to assist them with being better journalists.
I have participated in such a training with producers and editors for PBS a few years back and it highly successful in starting to look at themselves. I have worked with enough white people to know that all people are inherently good. We are participants in the invisible system and many people do not people they are under the control of racism, because when they do- they are forever changed.
How can anyone ever come to understand racism is they are biased against that "understanding"? How do you get them from point A to point B?
Again, the Clintons were supposed to be people who "understood" racism. We see how that idea is very problematic.
Not sure why you are in debate mode with me.
I'm actually promoting a nuanced understanding of what we all agree is a problem. I'm speaking in dynamics and how we connect understanding of these dynamics to the individual. There is a process to unpack these ideas and educate the individual who creates this thing we call the media.
In any situation there are going to be all out racists (ie: i hate black people,) some people who regard themselves as cheerleaders (as in i have black friends, but i dont understand why certain people don't look for work, behave like thugs etc) and some people quite frankly who get it truly like Tm Wise. Most people fall into that middle category... though their issues may be different of course.
What I propose to to talk to the great majority of people who are in the middle. The Rush Limbaughs may never create the mental room to understand his own beliefs differently. Truthfully, the way you type makes it impossible to have these conversations in ways to create more allies.
The point about mentioning PBS is that this work is being done, more so today than every before... Let's figure out ways to create more opportunities to engage media makers (ie: the people) in ways that respect their humanity while also being real about the impact of their ignorance. Ignorance we ALL have to systems of oppression.
You can have a total disregard for what I'm saying, but I will tell you my work has made an impact in connecting a person's values to their professional action.
So I'm done engaging in this discussion with you because I like to dialogue not debate. You should probably research what the difference is.
Have a great weekend!
Also, Tim Wise, who has been on TV (CNN sparingly) "talks fast" too. Sometimes he sounds like he's trying to sound cool too AND I know he would have no idea of what a "post civil rights" discussion would be about. Nowhere at no time has he ever voiced hostility to such a fabricated, MYTHICAL concept.
"Post civil rights?"
It's like there's a disconnect. From what I've seen, people who talk about "new voices and elevating the discussion" and getting beyond the "civil rights dynamic" do so just to "sound cool" and new generation or whatever you want to call it. Never have I seen an intelligent argument that actually makes the distinction or shows the differences they pretend to be there.
i'm not that person who wants to sound cool, but thanks for giving an cred for that. lol. this is a real sociological context being studied, researched, engaged. it is why jesse jackson and his like are no longer relevant.
never saw an argument: read bonilla- silva. in one of his books he interviews college students (ina number of schools,) and asks them about their racial beliefs. they portend to believe that all people deserve fairness, however they showed resistance to the notion of affirmative action. contradictory idea right? this is the notion of post civil rights. derrick heyward horton (U Albany) is studying demography and controlling for race to show the effect of racism... there are people doing the work and for at least 10 years.
The media understands fully well what they are doing and they will never be held accountable for it, just like they won't be held accountable for helping Bush lie about Iraq.
As long as we objectify the media we will not be able to unpack the issues that go into the systematic challenges that lend themselves to the larger issue of racism.
Can you really say that your question is even relevant, much less necessary? No, you can't. It's really lazy, sloppy logic.
No one can say that every person in the media held the Bush administrations water in the run up to the Iraq war, etc. But it is intellectually bankrupt to pretend as if a significant, critical mass of the media wasn't complicit in "pulling the wool over the American public's eyes" even though a majority of Black folks were always opposed to the war.
Hmmm... But for some reason we don't hear you talking about Town "objectifying" the media or the American public with regards to the Iraq war. Plus I thought this was about getting the media to "understand racism" which doesn't sound like the same thing as "unpacking the issues." That sounds more like there is a lot of understanding you/we have to gain before anything else...
Now THAT would be GREAT entertainment.
Two High-Ranking McCain Campaign Officials Lobbied For Companies At Center of Sex-For-Oil Scandal
By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld - September 12, 2008, 4:47PM
What if top members of Obama's staff were still getting paid as lobbyists of oil companies that have been implicasted in a drug& sex scandal?
fyi from a fellow pow who knew McCain since academy days and say McCain is not cut out to be president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70
I am feeling depressed about it all today. The lies and the anger and the hatred is getting to me. Whatever one thinks of McCain's policies or Palin's record, how people cannot see that she is wholly unprepared to be the vice president of US is beyond me. I saw a PBS news report tonight interviewing a bunch of people and some Palin-like middle-aged woman said she saw Palin and was brought to tears (of joy) that she might be the next president of the US. And, yes, she said president, not vice president. This woman, I am sure, had never heard of Palin before last week yet she would likely be the first to say "I just don't know enough about Obama." And she was likely someone who laughed when the old lady got up and asked McCain, in reference to Hillary, "How are you going to beat the bitch?"
I am going by the local Obama office tomorrow to see what I can do. I volunteered before our caucus, and they only recently reopened an office. I feel like I'll go mad if I don't do something positive. And it's payday so I've gotta remember to stop by barackobama.com.
I also work with people -- people I like a lot, people I consider friends -- who are going to vote for this man and woman.
I'll get over it.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...
I just don't get that, I really don't. That Karnie and that Jibreel run in here and post some inflamatory stuff designed to get y'all's dander up and y'all fall for it each and every time and waste hours responding to them. The way to get their goat is to ignore them. Don' t reply, ignore, ignore, ignore. We've got lots of work to do to win the White House and change Washington and we only have about 52 days to get our act together.
I have travelled to S. Carolina and Alabama to volunteer during the primary as well as in the state I reside. I contribute to our local Democratic party as much as I can.
My guess is alot of others who write here to like wise.
Have a nice day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poEaUMnCIDI&NR=1
Barack Obama Visits Granby High School in Norfolk, VA. 9/10/08
http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2...
Obama Exporting Texans To New Mexico!!
How's that for playing chess!!?? Just move one state to another!!! :>) :>)
QUESTION: Why did Mr. Obama cancel his appearance on SNL tomorrow??
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09...
Youuuuu - hooo!! Mr./Ms. Journalist!! :>) :>) :>)
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/heres-what-cha...
Mr./Ms. Journalist. This should be useful also!! :>) :>)
QUESTION: Why did Mr. Obama Make a Statement About Hurricane Ike??
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008...
"As another storm threatens the Gulf Coast, I'm praying for the safety of all those in Hurricane Ike's path, and urge everyone to heed the warnings of local authorities and seek safer ground immediately. Those who choose to stay are putting not only themselves at risk, but the emergency personnel working to ensure their safety. Now is the time to help those who want to leave but aren't able to -- and once the storm passes, we must work to provide swift relief wherever it is needed."
What do you want the press to do, Cheerlead for the man... wait MSNBC already dose that for Obama.
... because Obama is part Irish?
Spell checker - ATTACK!!! :>)
Whew! ?????Deep Breaths!! :>) :>)
And you still haven't been able to justify your "racist Black Liberation Theology" angle.
Yeah, you remember... You remember how you dropped that bs line when I made you. And as long as people revere the "founding fathers", the epitome of RACISTS... the last thing you ever should talk about is "racist" this or that. Especially with today's butt naked racist Republican party which is "friendly" to racists like card carrying members, like David Duke, of the old racist order. Clearly, there is so much the Republican party and people like that agree on.
But I'll give you another try little scared Karmi... You claim the church is/was "racist"... PROVE IT! You claim the Black Liberation Theology is "racist"... PROVE IT!!!
You failed before and ran like a little punk, Karmi... FYI... I won't be treating you with kid gloves this time. Now you're going to have to back your bs claims up and don't come off in her with some hacked up bs from so ignorant wingnut commentaries. Quote primary sources, statements in FULL CONTEXT and for all you want to make it out to be... the "racism" you're keep harping on better have murders, assaults, property damage or some kind of real, material consequence or real (which means not imaginary) racist intent worthy of you tagging Trinity as "a racist church" and framing Black Liberation Theology as "racist."
It's time to PUT UP or SHUT UP!
And I'll make it easy for you. There this "church" that has been called "racist" and I'm sure most people would agree. I'm sure people would also agree that the World Church of the Creator has a "racist" theology AND practice.
Here's your chance... Show how Trinity United Church of Christ is worthy of the "racist" tag given that example. Show how Black Liberation Theology is worthy of the tag given the example of White "racist" pseudo-religious dogma like that of the World Church of the Creator. Do that and make sure you stipulate to the similarities or differences in the ORIGINS of the 'theology' of the two churches and tell me about the behavior of the members of the two churches.
You know, the Bible says you judge a tree by its fruit. So tell me what kind of fruit has come from Black Liberation Theology -- which could arguably be said to find historical expression in the religious interpretation of people like Nat Turner (or David Walker, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth,, Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, etc.).
Black Liberation Theology - Black Hatred & Black Racists
I visited you site and is crystal clear that you do not like Obama. That
cool. We don't have to like the same politician. We (hopefully) vote for the politicians that support our best interest. What consider tobe my best interest may not be yours. However, your strong dislike of Obama is clearly emotional. From what I have read, there is no critique on Obama's political views. There is no criticism of what the work he did as politician (legislative work that he has accomplished). Nada, nothing. You simply do not like the man.
So you throw in ish like Black Liberation theology is racist and bother not to go to primary source to bolster your argument. You talk about how the ties between Ayers and Obama, especially during the time when Ayers was with the Weather Underground and Obama was playing with his Hot Wheels and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.
You use smoke & mirrors to cover up the fact that you have this deep emotional connection to him. It sort of like those twisted celeb stalkers we hear so much about.
You see, the problem with you Karmi is not that you are not a Obama supporter. That's all right. The problem is that you are so emotionally attatched to him. You don't want to accept that and you don't want others to catch on to that. That is why you come to this site time and time again to intellectually bitchslap. The reality is that Obama is an obsession for you.
Whether it is or isn't... the brain trust there made some sorry statement, sweeping in rhetorical excess, that claimed Cone and Wright were acting like slavery still exist(ed). What he actually quoted from Cone:
"Racism is that bondage in which whites are free to beat, rape, or kill blacks. About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death.”
Hmmm... Cone notes how, at the time, "THIRTY YEARS AGO..." and the brain surgeon (Karmi??) on the site wanted to try to discredit Cone/Wright by acting like they could tell the difference or account for the changes in American society and, most importantly, the (current) REALITY.
But what can you expect from someone so divorced from REALITY and so into the magical world of Disney or some type of make-believe that they say, without a hint of irony (or intelligence):
"Granted, white racism existed forty-years ago..."
... like White racism died 40 years ago. Like White racism was henceforth and forever removed from the USA on that fateful day (of Karmi's choosing) in 1968.
Hmmm.... But wait. That World Church of the Creator is one example of WHITE RACISM amongst many others up to and including the WHITE RACISM the Clinton campaign (white Democrats/liberals) put on display this year - 2008.
So talk about SMOKE and MIRRORS... It's clear Karmi defines WHITE RACISM in a way that's different from what he claims to be "Black racism."
Imagine that.
I changed my view about him when it was discovered that he had long term relationships with racists, crooks, terrorists, communists, and other anti-Americans.
RUNNING and DUCKING again? Obviously so.
The Swamp Hermit Report site you linked to does that whisper, powerlessness of suggestion bs, too. What you linked to dot-pointed several things about Black Liberation Theology, several things James Cone said and just declared them "racist" without a reason or rationale to back up the assertion. However, the author did say "it’s easy to understand how the once victims of racism"... Hmmmm... By all appearances, the author was quoting the Cone's reaction to actual racism. Racism that included racism in churches and religion as well as U.S. in the 1960's and 1970's. The authored referenced the publishing dates of Cone's books, one in 1969, the other in 1970. So his "once victims" idea is bogus. There was no "once" to it. The racism even s/he acknowledged was a very present and real part of what Cone was responding to.
Worse is this unsubstantiated and ridiculous notion by the author:
(ridiculous because s/he must believe in the magic or time warps)
"Granted, white racism existed forty-years ago..."
The fact that the site you linked to went to the logic of OZ and apparently believes White racism just up and disappeared circa 1968 alone makes it disreputable. With underlying beliefs and logic like that, it has no credibility.
Don't link me to BULLSHIT like that. At least have the humanity to link to a site that can make a credible or close-to-credible argument.
Sure inertia alone says that the momentum of 192 years of WHITE RACISM (that's just counting from 1776 to 1968)... sure inertia alone, not to mention the polling (and campaigning) in this election season, says that WHITE RACISM didn't just disappear the way your source-site suggests.
Simply, the argument (if one actually exists) from the Swamp Hermit site lacks credibility.
It's on you. You want to repeat the bs... You will have to defend the bs with your own logic. But we (you and me) have already seen how that's not possible. Even if the bs you claim was true you wouldn't be able to make the case because you just aren't capable.
Or, rather, it's the case that what you want to claim can't possibly be demonstrated (again, mere assertion(s) and link(s) don't do the trick) because what you keep trying to suggest just isn't true, much less defensible.
What you've done here is what you did before: you made an assertion, quoted/linked to the site/assertion of some partisan hack and hoped the mere assertion-suggestion -- the mere fact that you made the accusation -- would do the trick.
Obviously, you found THINKING to hard to do because you could not and definitely did not sustain debate over your bs assertion.
You posted a definition of racism and couldn't even make the quotes from James Cone and Rev. Wright fit the definition you posted. YOU FAILED.
You proved nothing but just how much of a mental midget you are.
I call you "names" because you fit the description. Plus I have no respect for intellectual cowards. The "name calling" is an intentional show of that disrespect.
But it is abundantly clear... I've proved my point that your claim that TUCC and the Black Liberation Theology are "racist" is BULLSHIT and clearly BULLSHIT that you can't defend/make the argument for.
Every post of yours has never included you proving that "point." Saying it, even believing it and surely just suggesting it is not "proving" it.
You've never done that.
Yet, I've made it easy for you. With the World Church of the Creator as the example of a "racist" church... my position is that you can't PROVE that TUCC or the Black Liberation Theology is "racist" given that example.
Decontextualized BS is not accepted.
Ahistorical BS is not accepted.
Little sissy azz games of "you proved my point" -- i.e. YOU NOT PROVING A DAMN THING YOURSELF -- is not accepted.
Reading is not a deficiency I have. Coming up with a logic vs. and EMOTIONAL and partisan (racial/political) basis for the claims you make is a well known handicap of yours.
Anytime the fear in you subsides, Karmi...
Anytime you're ready, I'll be here.
Last time, you tried to pull the same sh*t to. You wanted to talk about anything but your obvious ineptitude. Then, the same as now, like you lightweights tend to do... you were and are looking for any way out.
And, really... IF IT WAS SO EASY... Why is so hard for you... YOU, not some easily discredit hack site... WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO demonstrate YOUR proof now?
Simply, you can't. You don't have any. The best you got is a whisper campaign that holds weight with people of similar LOW aptitude.
But here's your chance. I've RESORTED to making this real easy. Show me how the TUCC compares to the World Church of the Creator. When you can go point-by-point and PROVE with no smoke and mirrors, no equivocation, etc., etc. that TUCC is "racist" like the World Church of the Creator is "racist" (because the WCOC, imo, would be the textbook definition of a "racist" church, etc.) then you would prove the point to me.
You can start by showing me the Black national church congregation the WCOC belongs to and fellowships with and the Black members of the WCOC.
Why do trolls do it?
I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.
Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.
For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.
Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it's a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?
Remember that trolls are cowards; they'll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that's what they do!).
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
No. It's on you to make your argument and establish the basis for your claim -- i.e. make the case, make the argument, in your own words and, at most, use references to OPINIONS of other mindless hacks as arguments/information that support WHAT YOU ARTICULATE and stipulate as the logical basis for the claim you make.
Again, I've made it so easy for you and my counter-point is clear: there is no way you can say that TUCC and Black Liberation Theology, even at its worse, is worthy of the "racist" tag with the type of "racist" example that is the World Church of the Creator and its psuedo-theology.
Look at you run........ AGAIN!!!
Well, that just shows how dumb you are and how ill-equipped you are and the dumb stuff promoted by the sites you read/reference is easily challenged and readily debunked.
"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right."
That's a direct quote from MLK. This too:
"Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy."
Ronald Reagan was a Goldwater Republican, I guess... So, yeah, let's talk about racists and associations with racists and/or those who "serve as an umbrella" under which historically marginalized WHITE racists found aid and comfort.
That's too funny...
http://www.frontiernet.net/~tzuleger/webjokes/r...
Jeff Foxworthy has made a living/bank/Benjamins/a grip with these jokes!! :>) :>)
You linked to a site promoting the MLK = Republican thing when MLK was a vocal non-partisan. FACE IT... I have no reason to even begin to view the site you linked to as credible, much less capable... when it has no regard for FACTS.
And here's the link I forgot to post (re: the MLK quotes).
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications...
NOTE: That's called a PRIMARY SOURCE. Something that's pretty important when it comes to those things called TRUTH and FACTS.
Troll, begone.
Don't get yourself riled up. She is so not worth it.
He or she is so wrapped up in the concept that "WHITE IS RIGHT" that anyone who questions that concept "automatically" hates white people.
So that person must be destroyed.
Karmi will not regain his or her emotional equilibrium until Obama is destroyed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onth...
NOTE: At no time in the history of this country has the question been asked:
IS AMERICA READY FOR (ANOTHER) WHITE PRESIDENT?
After all the racism that you, Karmi, apparently acknowledged as existing some 40 years ago... The question was NEVER asked. Kid gloves my azz!
McCain apologized for being against the MLK holiday and launched a "forgotten Americans" tour that he's obviously FORGOTTEN about but the press has NEVER "pressed" him and questioned WHY he was against it. NEVER has the MSM pressed him on the DOLLAR BILL controversy. NEVER has he went one-on-one like Palin did with an interviewer who asked him "why did you/your campaign charge Obama with playing the race card from the bottom of YOUR deck?" Yet, Obama was expected to give a statement on McCain's PROJECTION campaign... just like this lipstick bs.
NEVER has the MSM pressed McCain to answer for why he remains in a party and even hires strategist that played the race card on him. NEVER.
You NEVER showed how it was/is "an irrational attitude of hostility" much less "a discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race."
For some reason, your blog wouldn't publish my post, so I'll debunk one piece of your bs there... here.
What part of Sen. Obama or Rev. Daughtry being a part of the Democratic party promotes or is a practice of Black supremacy that's comparable to what we know about the KKK's version of White Supremacy which is not to be confused with the WHITE SUPREMACY of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln?
What part of Sen. Obama or Rev. Daughtry being a part of the Democratic party promotes or is a practice of Black separatism? Beyond that, what part of Trinity United Church of Christ being a part of predominantly white Christian congregation that actively fellowships with white churches in the congregation along with having its own white members promotes or practices Black separatism?
Your circular logic based on circumstantial evidence, at best, is laughable.
Note: Reparations isn't a part of Obama's platform or that of the DNC which makes your claim that Black Liberation Theology has "gained power" in the Democratic party bogus.
Manatee mating season ended a few weeks ago, and I had made plans for some manatee poaching (harpooning) last night.
Anyway, you can deny, rant and rave all you want to, but BLT is proven to be a racist doctrine. Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on the racial groups to which people belong. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their racial groups. At least the KKK, World Church of the Creator, Malcolm X, etc. admitted that they are/were racists – Obama and Black Liberation Theologists/Members don’t have the balls to admit it…along with many other left-wing African-Americans.
1) Obama proved my point – and others – when he finally rolled Rev. Wright under the bus. 2) Barack and Michelle proved my point – and others – when they rolled TUCC under the bus. MSM gave Barack and Michelle a free-pass once they walked away from the racist Wright and TUCC, i.e. MSM then ignored the fact that Barack and Michelle had spent roughly 20 years involved with and members of a racist church. MSM conveniently ‘forgot’ about the 20 years part…
BTW, you have “debunked” nothing. Denial isn’t debunking. Also, my site has a spam-filter which stopped your posts…I have de-spammed one and it is up. The other looked like a duplicate and was deleted. I will address it later, after cleaning some harpooned manatee.