Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

CraigHickman — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:54:15 -0000

Why would it? I know the context of that remark and It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Unless you have evidence that he has said something like, "I don't need to worry about getting votes from Black people because they will support me no matter what I do" then, suffice it to say, I'm not going to agree with you about this.

No disrespect.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

AnthonyMason — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:55:47 -0000

it just hit me that under the new FISA law, the govt could be monitoring my pc as i type. yet u dont care about that? we wont have a future if dont have liberty.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

micheline — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:02:30 -0000

I agree with you 100% . Another problem is the no drama policy. Whenever a newstory come out Obama hates it when the staff overreacts. That's a good thing but sometimes there are problems with that. Rev. Wright is a perfect example. When the Wright came back into the spotlight they took too long to respond to the fiasco. The same with FISA. A couple days after Obama made his announcement, David Plouffe was asked about the Netroots' furious reaction to his supporting the bill. Plouffe asked what reaction? I mean talk about out of touch.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

GreenLadyHere — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:14:46 -0000

PTCruiser/CPL: Since I've already vented, I'll just say a passionate AAAA-MEN! :>)

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

GreenLadyHere — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:12:01 -0000

TRW: On the billary part - how can I express enough mydisgust at even seeing the "unity" pic/videos. I know - "that's politics"! But she/bill are such DANGEROUS SSSSSSSSSSnakes! O.K. I've vented! :>)

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

GreenLadyHere — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:05:11 -0000

Honey01/michelle: I'm feeling both of you. Need the FACTS!!

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

bigassbelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:48:28 -0000

well of course not. he knows nothing, as evidenced by the fact that he was completely unaware of welfare reform. and he's evidently unaware that the south ~ formerly white ~ side of this city is fairly well integrated.

he was indoctrinated, as so many wretched assholes have been, with the view that black = welfare recipient. though it started before him, ronald reagan used that meme to win the whitehouse.

he knows nothing, yet his racism and his prejudice informs and infects his entire life and his political views and it will cause him to vote for john mccain, despite the fact that mccain will continue the unchecked globalization this asshat started talking about. he's just a fucking idiot and it breaks my heart and it seems completely hopeless. i keep thinking if all of us ~ the people not like him ~ join together, that we'd be unbeatable. i don't think that will ever happen.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

eclecticbrotha — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:23:45 -0000

You.
Not.
Paying.
Attention.

By the way, have you ever heard of a little thing called "COINTELPRO?" I believe blacks learned more than enough about civil liberties when that was exposed. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how removing our ability to sue the telecoms in civil court actually violates our civil liberties.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Donna_L — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:22:57 -0000

Thanks for the info eclecticbrotha! Here is the link to the Giordano post and thread calling out Greenwald on his demoagoguery

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/salon...

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

PTCruiser — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:18:20 -0000

"not on welfare, if they earned it, it would be one thing, but they didn't earn it."

Did this person tell you how he knew that everyone in North Tulsa was on welfare?

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

eclecticbrotha — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:16:22 -0000

Belle, I have a question for you. Do you feel that the economy, education, health care, crumbling infrastructure, global warming, overdependency on foreign oil and the war in Iraq are LESS important than FISA, or are they all of EQUAL importance? I feel they are all of equal importance and I have no intention of harping on one and jeopardizing our opportunity to achieve the rest. Even if Obama would have sided with us on this FISA his vote would not have turned the tide in the final tally. I happen to believe in the old cliche that says "there's no use crying over spilled milk." The votes have been cast, the bill has been signed. We still have time to fight for the rest of the goals I've listed, but we can't waste any more valuable time debating FISA after the fact. So let's move on, shall we?

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

bigassbelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:16:01 -0000

and only in American would anyone contributing to discussion on a blog assume that they know what any individual is or is not doing, based on their words, what actions are or are not being taken whether by individual on the right or the left.

only in america does 80% of the population stay so disengaged as to not even know what's going on, let alone express an opinion about it or, lord knows, take any action.

only in george bush's america, do people try to squelch the dissent upon which the nation was founded.

only in this america would people all across the spectrum from left to right cavalierly dismiss the very thing that makes us a nation, as if it's nothing more than used up toilet paper.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Michelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:45:23 -0000

Hey heartsandflowers, did you see the recent post at the field that says (in part):

Only in America do a significant number of people equate expressions of outrage and indignation du jour as somehow being akin to the hard work of political activism or participation. And I hate to say it, but this delusion is worse, much worse, on the left side of the dial where reaction is the standard operating procedure in place of authentic action. I speak, therefore I act is the great American illusion of politics.

(PS A thunderstorm is coming in so I need to turn off the computer now, but I saw your other comment and will email you when I can get more computer time. I have no idea why your email to the address I posted above bounced.)

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

bigassbelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:31:47 -0000

been back, heartsand flowers.

i don't know why i come back. i'm a fool for doing so, i think.

but i'll tell you this. it bugs the shit out of me that i live in a world where a white man can say to me, as one did just a couple of hours ago (because i am a white woman and he makes stupid assumptions), that if barack obama wins the presidency, "north tulsa will think they can just live anywhere they want to."

because you don't know this, i'll tell you that "north tulsa" is a predominately african american neighborhood.

and then he continued by saying that "they will think they do anything they want, go anywhere, live anywhere." when i said that anyone in this country is legally allowed to live anywhere they want to, he said "not on welfare, if they earned it, it would be one thing, but they didn't earn it."

so that's why i'm here. because i give a shit and there is too much wrong in this society for any person or group to handle unless we all join together. you think i'm shitting on your candidate, but to me, he shit on the constitution ~ along with the other 66 or so fuckheads who voted on this bill ~ and that is wrong. just as the man who spoke to me this afternoon is wrong.

people like that jackass are the enemy in getting obama elected, not people like me, who question him. i don't know when dissent became a crime in this country, but speaking up and talking about what's wrong is the only way to change.

so i'm torn. just hush up and go away? try to add to the conversation here? i didn't notice anything exclusionary on this blog. did i miss it?

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

bigassbelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:24:36 -0000

not telecom immunity.

fourth amendment.

constitution.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

roadkill refugee — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:50:34 -0000

One frustrating aspect to this whole "FISA sell out/flip-flop" business is Obama supported the much more significant, from a civil liberties standpoint, Supreme Court case restoring habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees. It was a 5-4 decision, and McCain and his surrogates attacked Obama as soft on terrorism for supporting it. If Obama was hell bent on tacking to the center, he would have disagreed with it. It would have been easy. Some on the right suggested it was the worst Sup Ct decision ever -- worse than Plessy v. Ferguson. It was only last month, but the netroots have all forgotten about it and given him no credit for it whatsoever. Most of these folks complaining don't know half as much about constitutional law as Obama.

Obama promised to filibuster a different FISA bill in January. This is what legislators do -- they bluff and cajole to get a better bill. Obama plays poker. For all we know, his threat to filibuster may have improved the bill.

Some on the left, like Dave Winer today, argue he should have staked his whole campaign on telecom immunity. This is lunacy. I could care less if telecom carriers pay off a few plaintiffs lawyers, only to later get reimbursed by their insurance carriers. What good does that do? The revised FISA law is better, but the Patriot Act is what gutted the 4th Amend. It was passed in 2002 before Obama became president. Who's going to fix that -- McCain or Obama? Some purity trolls on netroots are acting so crazy, it's like they think McCain will be better for them on these kinds of issues. It's crazyass Russian roulette.

The Kos folks, and Rachel Maddow, and Greenwald, are pissing me off by completely misrepresenting and over-blowing the importance of telecom immunity. They're sloppy on the facts, and wrong in how they're carrying out their anger. All they're doing is giving Sean Hannity something to talk about ("Hey look, even Obama's supporters are angry!"). I suspect most of these angry folks weren't true Obama supporters in the first place, otherwise they'd keep it in perspective and stop being such narcissistic spoiled brats.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

heartsandflowers — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:37:09 -0000

The email didn't work Michelle.

michellesbells@myway.com is what I used and it bounced back

If you see this I am at fldow@yahoo.com

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

CPL — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:36:49 -0000

Does "There is No Black America?" convince you what he thinks about the Black vote, Craig?

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

heartsandflowers — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:10:53 -0000

Hmmm so you're back. I recall you saying you were leaving until election time because you were crying over FISA and it was a deal-breaker for you and blah blah blah. Now this...why are you here?

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

heartsandflowers — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:01:43 -0000

You should go over to Narco news and read Al Giordano's very accurate rebuttal with FACTS to BACK IT UP and how wrong Greenwald is. And then you may need to rethink your own lack of investigation when you take a position strictly on the basis of one person's opinion.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Akonuche — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:45:44 -0000

Yes. That b.s. came directly from the head man himself. As if Obama is some child! I mean, who the hell do you think you are talking to? And if these people are not careful, there could very well be a backlash coming on them from those who do not agree with their flame-throwing. I have had to scale back my visits over at DailyKos because of it. The same with Ariana Huffington and the rest of them. It's as if everyone has lost their gatdamned minds!

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

CraigHickman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:31:02 -0000

Truthseeker, Barack is hiring new staff to his campaign. He's hired outreach coordinators to several different communities, including the African-American community, an action that all by itself rebuts the notion he's taking our votes for granted.

He's trying things out. Learning as he goes. Which is why he's perfectly fine with stopping with the stuff that doesn't work.

I believe he's already receiving some fresh perspectives, but because he's a man of deliberation, we may not see a radical facelift.

That said, I trust his deliberateness. I'm not suggesting he's running a flawless campaign, but he's privy to much more than I am. And I simply can't imagine all that he's up against

Sometimes I get the feeling that many of his supporters who happen to be Black forget that Barack is, well, Black.

All I mean by that is that he can't possibly do all things the same way a white candidate could.

I'm rambling now, but...

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

CraigHickman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:58:29 -0000

Defining my terms:

Truth isn't the opposite of lying. Sometimes you have to lie in order to tell the truth.

But that's another discussion.

Peace.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

CraigHickman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:54:24 -0000

I'm asking you a question that I don't see an answer to.

If you call that being disingenuous, so be it.

But you're wrong.

You said that Barack believes Black people will support him no matter what he does.

And since I don't see that at all, I'm asking you to point me toward the light.

If you can't do that, then own your statement as an opinion and leave it at that.

But if it's a fact, I'm open to seeing the evidence about what Barack believes about the Black vote.

Re: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Anderkoo — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:50:39 -0000

I'm not as tempted to make this out as a black-or-white issue as one about the fickle nature of the Netroots. This might be patronizing of me, but I do have a stereotype of Netroot types as political naifs who, as Mixed Bag put it earlier, have the "luxury" of ideological purity. That goes for most "echo chambers," maybe even this one.

If you want to get really worried, sign up for the FISA group on my.BarackObama.com -- a good number of the posters there claim to be Hillary supporters who are heightening the existing sour feelings. The Obama campaign is making a big mistake not planting a few of their own in there with some good online mediation skills to cool things off. I think that the majority of the group's members, like myself, are reasonable and just want to register their displeasure. But a few smart operatives can really break off a chunk of that group and turn them against Barack.

I do wonder, given the predictable response, what Obama thought he was gaining by voting for the bill. I don't see who he'd be picking up, so I'm not sure how I much I buy the "sellout" story versus an honest policy/legislative weighing-of-the-merits. One of the more intelligent posts from the my.BO FISA group points to this blog entry's comments,

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/07/c...

and

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/07/c...

Do we need to accept the "common wisdom" that in voting for FISA, Obama was "selling out"? Or is this that phenomenon of the legislator's task being compromise, which is in turn compromising for someone who wants to be an executive?