Obama - The Unfolding Story - Page 45

TheDogon · (#1101 (**permalink**))

Man, there is some passion out there about this stuff. We don't seem to know whether this is a good thing or a bad.

Why do we have to argue over this so hard? What's the deal? Barack is appealing to a lot of folks. And is pissing off a lot of others.

That's life.

But I think we need to stop with the accusations. Folks voting for Obama are not being duped. . .well. . .not any more than in years past. And people who don't want to vote for Obama are not necessarily self-hating.

Aren't there other topics to cover in this race?

adrianerik · (#1102 (**permalink**))

If the discussion can remain OBJECTIVE oriented rather than PROCESS oriented (what he wears, how he speaks, who he smiles to, who he ignores) then it can become more than a discussion about Obama. It becomes a discussion about how our communities can obtain their goals. Not just with a president. GMahagony was correct when she implied that, in a representative system, we must MAKE our representatives act. She mentioned the riots. Maybe. Nevertheless, all of us so-called activists fail, when we cannot first motivate our people with our vision(s) or great understandings of the world and allow thousands of community groups to spring up, motivated by clear concerns for the needs of our people and lighting fire under the local pols, then the state pols, the church leaders, the school boards, and then the president.

I see Obama's candidacy as an opportunity to reflect upon the African American 'movement'. The state of the 'union'? To quote Pogo...."we is met de enemy and de enemy...dey is us!"

I agree that there are intelligent people supporting and not supporting Obama. A case can be made for McCain. One has not been made on this forum...but a case can be made.

A moderate Republican president dealing with a democratially controlled congress will probably be able to hold the right wing crazies at bay. Maybe.

TheDogon · (#1103 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrianerik

If the discussion can remain OBJECTIVE oriented rather than PROCESS oriented (what he wears, how he speaks, who he smiles to, who he ignores) then it can become more than a discussion about Obama. It becomes a discussion about how our communities can obtain their goals. Not just with a president. GMahagony was correct when she implied that, in a representative system, we must MAKE our representatives act. She mentioned the riots. Maybe. Nevertheless, all of us so-called activists fail, when we cannot first motivate our people with our vision(s) or great understandings of the world and allow thousands of community groups to spring up, motivated by clear concerns for the needs of our people and lighting fire under the local pols, then the state pols, the church leaders, the school boards, and then the president.

I see Obama's candidacy as an opportunity to reflect upon the African American 'movement'. The state of the 'union'? To quote Pogo...."we is met de enemy and de enemy...dey is us!"

I agree that there are intelligent people supporting and not supporting Obama. A case can be made for McCain. One has not been made on this forum...but a case can be made.

A moderate Republican president dealing with a democratially controlled congress will probably be able to hold the right wing crazies at bay. Maybe.

Thanks for that post.

For me. . .personally the most important thing is to end the war in Iraq. I have family over there.

But in terms of our community, the truth is we need to look at candidates outside of the Democratic party. But the "Black" vote must be disciplined. And I don't know if we can do that. Actually, this election Ralph Nader looks awfully appealing. Even Bob Barr is worth looking at.

Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary was the one who had the most progressive agenda.

We need to look at ways to enumerate issues of concern and to get that vote to swing towards candidates that actually produce results.

Gmahogany777 · (#1104 (**permalink**))

@VK, what makes you think I needed to get in a rabbit punch? You started with the personal insults, not I. I really never even responded in kind like I’m capable of,(as everyone here is well aware of), aside from a minor jab or two. The reason for that is that I respect you,(for the most part) and don’t detest you, though I disagree with you and don’t appreciate some of the tactics you’ve used in this debate. I don’t feel that way about everybody and my tone with them will reflect that. For instance, I don’t feel that way about people who live in impotent/latent homosexual houses but want to throw sexual frustration/homophobic stones,lol.

At any rate, I was just not allowing you to rewrite the history of how we got to this point. For the record, I don’t see you as weak. I see you and your cohort’s arguments as weak. BTW, just because you and those who have taken up residence under your scrotum keep saying I’ve been exposed as a liar or a hypocrite does not make it so. I’d be surprised if anyone other than you or them are viewing this debate that way,lol. You said yourself that I was being cheered on and encouraged like I was the Second Coming early on. I’m not saying anything different than what I was saying at that time. That doesn’t sound like someone whose argument is inconsistent or contradictory…..So…keep throwing it up against the wall and see it sticks,lol.

@Adrian-I don’t know why you keep saying that we can’t organize around respect, as if that’s what I’m implying. Are you seriously going to make the argument that letting a politician know that they can openly disrespect you while they simultaneously rely on YOUR vote has no effect on their governance or how they deal with you subsequently? Why are you acting like expecting and demanding respect from someone WHO NEEDS YOUR VOTE is some kind of unreasonable, kooky, unheard of, wild eyed militant ANTIC. You act like we NEED the person trying to get elected and not like they NEED us. What gives? If you don’t have enough sense to recognize and maximize your leverage then(at it’s highest point,btw), I’d say your goose is already cooked,lol.

I would submit to you that not only does it effect how that particular politician deals with you and your agenda, but it affects how OTHER people who have not yet been elected deal with you who are WATCHING how that other mofo deals with you. In other words, I am certain that the way that Obama’s campaign approached dealing with Negroes was rooted in their observations of how Bill Clinton’s campaign was able to be disrespectful to Blacks and still get their support because of the whole “I’m the lesser of 2 evils routine”. BTw, what that really means is you should let me disrespect you because eventhough I’m going to screw you, I’m going to let you use Vaseline and buy you dinner first, but the Republican is just gonna screw you,lol.

So instead of endeavoring to conduct yourself in a way that ensures that NO ONE thinks they can disrespect you or come offering you some half assed pick your poison choice like they are doing you a favor and still rely on your blind support by biting the bullet one time we ensure that the disrespect is a recurring phenomenon. What’s even more funny is that with the Dems track record, more often than not we end up having to live under the Republican “boogeyman” reign ANYWAY(in spite of our uniform and predictable support of the Dem and acceptance of their disrespect taking us for granted,etc), and accept that we’ve not only been dissed, but dissed by LOSERS,lol.

I think what’s going on here is that we are accepting of disrespect and act like it’s some unreasonable, “exotic” think to demand from others because we secretly don’t believe that we DESERVE respect. That’s why we can make comments like the ones that have been made about Obama would have been “embarrassed” if he had gone around those Black folks, and characterize very respectable campaigns run by Black men that plenty of white candidates would have given their eye teeth for as not being credible or serious.

As to your Lincoln analogy, it was bad for a couple of reasons, though you’re right about Lincoln not being motivated by concern for us. a. he was already in office,(and ya’ll had little or nothing to say about it), and b. This isn’t 1865 and we aren’t slaves with no rights or status who need to just be happy with whatever crumbs someone decides to throw us. I was using the 1865 thing jokingly but I see some are REALLY still operating as if that’s where we are today and making decisions based on it. Who knew?

You talked about the Covenant with Black America political agenda not being “impressive” or heavy or deep. Who said that it was? When Obama went and tapdanced in front of the Jewish lobbying organizations they didn’t have a heavy or deep list of grievances they mainly want to know your stance on Israel(short and sweet). The point is he was TRYING to get all of the people running to ADDRESS the issues and state their positions BEFORE wholesale supporting them(which is pretty much what EVERY other group of people do,btw). First you say we have no agenda, then when the one person who TRIED to put one together and tried to get candidates to address it you say it wasn’t impressive and castigate him for even attempting to establish leverage or accountability with those who are asking us to vote for them, but wanna accuse others of typical undermining Negroid behavior and haterism, I see ya’ll got jokes for days. Maybe the Covenant has not been more successful cause ya’ll Negroes refuse to hold anybody running for office to any kind of standard beyond coming to your church and knowing gospels songs or sprinkling pixie dust your way. Ya’ll are full of sh*t on this matter and I’m certain of that now.

In regards to your comments about global perspective and an American election not being just for comments by Americans, I never said it was. What I said and have BEEN saying is that taking an interest in another country’s affairs is cool, but INSERTING yourself in to them and being arrogant enough to PRESUME to be able to ascribe motivations and come to conclusions about what it means if CITIZENS of that nation do or don’t vote for a particular person, like you pay taxes up in this b*tch is NOT cool. It’s arrogant and disrespectful not to mention more likely to be UNINFORMED or UNDERINFORMED. Beyond that, there can be a conflict of interest, or suspect motivation in some instances. BTW, There is still such a thing as arrogance isn’t there? Or has that gone the way of disrespect for ya’ll, this election cycle???

I’m keenly interested in what is going on in Zimbabwe too,(particularly the white media’s response and their “outrage” regarding this “oppression” in contrast to apartheid), but I wouldn’t insert myself into that situation and start lecturing or making accusations towards Zimbabweans about what it means about their status as Black person in good standing, if they do or don’t support Mugabe and come to all kinds of grand conclusions when I’m sitting my Black ass over here in America and don’t have to live with those decisions. I would stay in my place and if I didn’t I would be quickly and sternly reminded to do so, and no one would be coming in arguing about it like they didn’t know if the Zimbabweans who were telling me to shut the phuck up had a point or not,lol. Full of shit-itis is rampant round these parts, methinks……

I find that I have to repeat myself again for the arrogant and idiotic (bad combo), among us who now have apparently concluded that I’m not going to vote for Obama because he chastised Black folks. Again, had they taken the time to READ the thread, (even the fairly recent posts) before jumping in all limp, I mean half cocked, they would know that this is NOT the reason that I’m not voting for him and that I decided not to vote for him and discussed it AT LENGTH WAY BEFORE ANY OBAMA CHASISEMENT OF BLACK FOLKS. My comments about the chastisement and the King thing were by way of explaining a PATTERN that I was picking up on BEFORE those things occurred. They just CONFIRMED my already well thought out decision not to vote for him…umkay????? Some of you people are really tiring in your cluelessness.

@ Adrian-BTW, a. the SOTBU has been around for 10 years, the covenant hasn't even been round for half that long. B. PLENTY of folks know what's in the covenant even if YOU didn't til I referred you to it. It was a NY Times best seller and it's FOLLOW-UP was a bestseller TOO. The Tom Joyner show has regularly talked about how people in various communities were getting together in their churches and elsewhere to apply the things listed to their PARTICULAR communities Tavis stays busy going to these various gatherings at their invitation. Since you JUST became familiar with it, I think it's a little presumptious (not to mention hateresque) of you to now pose as an expert on it and glibly dismiss it .....Hi hater,lol.Just kidding.

Vubundada_Kandaba · (#1105 (**permalink**))

@Gmahogany,

I have said it before and will say it now that it ain't personal for me and I said that I might disagree vehemently with you on this subject but there will be a thousand more issues we can agree on. What I said weren't insults but they are what I saw as a reflection of positions which too me seem contradictory especially when we know what is said but try to make it out as something else and I call it as it is. But you too engaged in insults so many times here and I will show you how. I am not one who is keen on using certain words but I will make an exception here, you like to call people who support Obama"Kool- Aid Drinkers", "Lodged in Obama's ass", "riding Obama's dick", the list is so long and one just had to read your posts and see the use of referring to people who support Obama in a Deragatory tone.

And for your info, I tried hard not to get into conflict with you. This was why in this post and the other post "State of Black America" I disagreed with you and bowed out because I was trying not to ruin my relationship with you. I decided to respond back strongly because you tried to make it sound like you cleaned the place with me and was having your way with me including other people, when It was obvious I did not want to go too far and trying to cool things, refer back to post #606 page 25 of this very post and previous pages and also on the thread "State of the Black Union", the "Fidel Castro Post" where you try to make it sound like I had no idea of American Civil Rights History, the "Tavis Smiley Quites TJMS Thread" where I just let you have the last word just so things don't get out of hand. So It ain't personal and was never personal for me, but I will respond to your posts whenever I see a position which I think is contradictory in nature.

Kunjufu · (#1106 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrianerik

If the discussion can remain OBJECTIVE oriented rather than PROCESS oriented (what he wears, how he speaks, who he smiles to, who he ignores) then it can become more than a discussion about Obama. It becomes a discussion about how our communities can obtain their goals. Not just with a president. GMahagony was correct when she implied that, in a representative system, we must MAKE our representatives act. She mentioned the riots. Maybe. Nevertheless, all of us so-called activists fail, when we cannot first motivate our people with our vision(s) or great understandings of the world and allow thousands of community groups to spring up, motivated by clear concerns for the needs of our people and lighting fire under the local pols, then the state pols, the church leaders, the school boards, and then the president.

I see Obama's candidacy as an opportunity to reflect upon the African American 'movement'. The state of the 'union'? To quote Pogo...."we is met de enemy and de enemy...dey is us!"

I agree that there are intelligent people supporting and not supporting Obama. A case can be made for McCain. One has not been made on this forum...but a case can be made.

A moderate Republican president dealing with a democratially controlled congress will probably be able to hold the right wing crazies at bay. Maybe.

Adrian... I completely agree, were it not for the 'historical' factor of Obama I would advocate McCain over Hillary, Bush, Clinton anytime..... His behaviour thus far in the campaign for nomination and against Obama has been honorable.. I would have to be honest and state from the get go....

However the weakness of McCain is three fold imo :

1. Whilst he was right about the 'surge' strategy in Iraq, his idea only rectifies the initial mistake made by Bush, it does not and cannot EVER correct the basic problem in that country and that is without outside assistance that regime in Iraq will collapse in a heartbeat. Which means America is permenantly stuck in iraq and cannot withdraw regardless. without incurring another vietnam scenario, and i think he already knows it too!

2. It is obvious given how little he mentions it that McCain has no credible strategy on the economy, because if he had a big idea like say Huckeby's tax strategy he would and should be beating Obama up with it all day long... Instead he concentrates on the issue of security and that by itself ought to be a big warning signal..

3. Finally I disagree with your last thought, McCain will have the SAME problem Obama has now, being on the liberal side of his parties spectrum, he will like Obama, have to continually prove his Authority to the Neo Cons, and others... For fear of appearing 'weak' so I think it more not less likely that either McCain or Obama might do something stupid in this respect...

Incognito · (#1107 (**permalink**))

Adrianerik/K - this is better, my objection has been the chastising of Obama without a similar nth degree critique of the others. I kind of gave the benefit of the doubt that this being an Obama thread may be seen as debating all candidates from all parties as being too broad.

Even so, the worse crime of irony is debating the ills of Obama while omitting the ills of the other candidates as if somehow these ills can be taken for granted because of their skin colour or something - especially when the real focus on discussing Obama and his ills seems to be because he is black, that's black as opposed to a politician.

VK - it's called the female competitive stupor and how things are perceived because of this.

Burning Spear · (#1108 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunjufu

Adrian... I completely agree, were it not for the 'historical' factor of Obama I would advocate McCain over Hillary, Bush, Clinton anytime..... His behaviour thus far in the campaign for nomination and against Obama has been honorable.. I would have to be honest and state from the get go....

However the weakness of McCain is three fold imo :

1. Whilst he was right about the 'surge' strategy in Iraq, he idea only rectifies the initial mistake made by Bush, it does not and cannot EVER correct the basic problem in that country and that is without outside assistance that regime in Iraq will collapse in a heartbeat. Which means America is permenantly stuck in iraq and cannot withdraw regardless without another vietnam scenario, and i think he already knows it too!

2. It is obvious given how little he mentions it that McCain has no credible strategy on the economy, because if he had a big idea like say Huckeby's tax strategy he would and should be beating Obama up with it all day long... Instead he concentrates on the issue of security and that by itself ought to be a big warning signal..

3. Finally I disagree with your last thought, McCain will have the SAME problem Obama has now, being on the liberal side of his parties spectrum, he will like Obama, have to continually prove his Authority to the Neo Cons, and others... For fear of appearing 'weak' so I think it more not less likely that either McCain or Obama might do something stupid in this respect...

Excellent analysis.

Incognito · (#1109 (**permalink**))

That has to be Post of the Day:

3. Finally I disagree with your last thought, McCain will have the SAME problem Obama has now, being on the liberal side of his parties spectrum, he will like Obama, have to continually prove his Authority to the Neo Cons, and others... For fear of appearing 'weak' so I think it more not less likely that either McCain or Obama might do something stupid in this respect...

Incognito · (#1110 (**permalink**))

K - I'd go as far to say with the republicans having served two terms with Bush it will need a left-wing swinging softy softy republican to have any chance of being in the running so you can almost take it for granted that there will be a good degree of left-sided appeasement talk coming from that camp - which raises a question...how many loyal republicans jump ship based on this swing to the left...not to tie republican as synonymous to being white but I suspect not many, especially if the captain of the other ship is black.....a white woman maybe.

This all ties in with the conspiracy theory of getting republicans in again i.e. it's in their best interest to make the leader of the opposition as weak a challenge (based on redneck fear) as possible - even more so with obama having to dip to the right. Either way it's a double edged sword of victory for the 'powers that be', because they get their wish while dangling that carrot which gives the impression black people can make a difference if they try. Time will tell how much difference and how much of this is merit sincerely earned.