Lol!
Mennnn...you're funny!
A mule and an arcre indeed....
I don't know what Hillary will definately do when she gets into power but like you said if it's a tried and tested sh*t maybe that's why you don't want to rock the boat..valid point
On the other hand though suspicious as it is that Obama is welcomed by the whites, it could all be pshycological war-fare to shake the confidence of some black people in him, if they go all out guns blazing against him like they did with OJ they know Obama would become a living martyr! and I don't think they would unwittingly make that mistake twice in a row... I think I can look at Obama from a few angles, if as you said their (Hillary and Obama's) policies are not yards apart both being democrats ofcourse, then I would find it a positive experience just to see a mostly black (though maybe not as native as most would like) being at the realms of such power. If Arnold who is essentially austrian can make it , maybe Obama could get a look in too..From reports Obama has been talking to people like JZ,Kanye etc who whether we like it or not lots of young black kids look up to about putting positive stuff out there. Ok maybe JZ would be as hypocritcal but I beleive in positive reinforcement , some of it will get to the kids...
Maybe one thing to ponderon is how soon another black family will get so close, who knows maybe it'll be the norm...
Something that popped to me was I'm sure till MLK's acceptance eventually by the white community must have put some black people off him, but it must be comforting that the message still came through him and the others in the team inspite of it all...

Lest it was getting lost in translation I have ALWAYS said that IMHO noone should vote for anyone without getting informed about the person they feel inclined to vote for even if it happens to be Obama. Also like I said in my previous answer to this , if Obama doesn't seem to to be that far off from Hillary inspite of his inexperience what would any black person have to lose from seeing someone who looks like them being respected and revered as we've seem in a few hollywood movies with Morgan Freeman as president? Guess time will tell..

We wouldn't have anything to lose. The only problem is, he has to win first. One of the main considerations in the Democratic party selection of a nominee is how much of a chance the person chosen will have against whatever white male nominee the Republicans are going to nominate. THe Dems have not been in the WHite house in 8 years. There are BLack people here who for good reason, don't believe that white people are going to vote en masse for a Black man for President,(even a Black man they think is "safe" and who makes them feel comfy). There are AA's who believe, rightly or wrongly that to nominate a Black man on the Dem side, is to insure a loss in the General Election. BTW, there are also Black people and white people here, who believe that to nominate Hillary is to insure a loss in the General Election. So it's just a matter of who Dems feel, who is less of a longshot. Some of us, because of our past experience with mighty whitey, feel that Hillary is less of a longshot. To be honest, if there was a white man on the Dem side, who people thought had any chance whatsoever or who wasn't a total dud, Hillary and Obama would be in trouble, because most Dems would vote for the viable white man(Black and white Dems I mean), cause they want to WIN in November. The way I see it, this is probably the year to take a chance and vote for someone Black, because the way I analyze it, as long as the Republicans can prop up a white man with a pulse on their side, that person, is going to become attractive to large numbers of white people(no matter how much of a loser he is) and have a shot at winning against Hillary or Obama, just because he's a white man, and they are not.......Call me cynical, but that's how I see it.

There have been Black candidates on the govenor level, like Doug Wilder in VA, and Tom Bradley in California, who according to the polls should have won HANDILY in those states. Wilder did win, by 1 point, mainly because of the large number of BLack folks in VA. Bradley lost 2 times to unknown, nondescript white candidates, in spite of being a law and order type dude(former police chief), and mayor of Los Angeles for years. White folks supposedly loved Bradley and told pollsters they were going to vote for him. They went into the voting booths and did the exact opposite of what they said they would do. Whites who normally voted for Democrats switched and voted Republican, rather than vote for a N*gger, when it came down to it, in "LIBERAL" California. It happened in other cities/states,as well. The media even gave the phenomenon a name, the "Bradley Effect". It basically means that white people will lie to pollsters about who they are going to vote for,switch and vote for the opposite party that they normally vote for and some more ish, when it comes to voting for a BLack person. Have the masses of white folks changed in that regard? That remains to be seen, but you can understand why a lot of AA's are not banking on that. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes.......

Valid points, but I have only gone from the resistance I have heard directly.... As far as presidency goes I don't know anyone was in power who was part-black, if they are so concerned about nativity how come it did Arnold no harm being foreign, (Ok he married a kennedy)maybe he is a bit special...lol


It got me thinking the other day all these jewish sit-coms that clog the tv/cable here is unblievable, some have been really cool, but others have just been cringe-worthy yet you know if the TV powers in America weren't so jewish concentrated most of them wouldn't get anywhere. Still don't advocate doing anything just because someone has "black in them" which looks like will not happen anyhow...but I also would not discount them just because they are not the "white dream"...

Black folks didn't support Arnold in his bid for govenor, to my knowledge he ran as a Republican and most of us are Democrats,,and like I stated before, Arnold can't run for president because he is not native born, that is a law. THere have been some part Black presidents,lol, there is a book called 5 BLack presidents as a matter of fact, and one of them is still living,(most people just don't know it cause they were passing for white, but that's a whole other discussion). The bottom line is, AA's don't have to prove that we will vote for white people, partially white people,partially Black people, or BLack people, we have and will vote for all of the above, we do it everyday. It is WHITE people who have yet to show that THEY will vote for anybody other than a white person in any significant way, in any significant numbers.


I guess when opinions are unsolicited they can be annoying...lol
Like I said this is the only Obama esq thread I have read or talked about (I might go looking for the others just to see what you're talking about ..) so I doubt I have come down hard on anyone with smuggness or anything else for that matter, I ask when I don't know, to me there's alot to be learnt from others.. being the american presidency you know there's going to be opinions left right front and centre...funnily enough black people are so pre-occupied with why they will or/will not vote for Obama that it seems they have not paid much attention to what some whites think about it, and lets just say some of that stuff online is freaky but at least we're distracted enough right now..lol

Understood, and I wasn't directing my earlier comments towards you. Black folks don't pay much attention to what white folks SAY they think about it because a. in some instances we already know, some of us know what they think before THEY know what they think, we've been dealing with their asses for so long, and b. we don't believe them, anyway,lol.

[quote=Gmahogany777;1455628]

We wouldn't have anything to lose. The only problem is, he has to win first. One of the main considerations in the Democratic party selection of a nominee is how much of a chance the person chosen will have against whatever white male nominee the Republicans are going to nominate. THe Dems have not been in the WHite house in 8 years. There are BLack people here who for good reason, don't believe that white people are going to vote en masse for a Black man for President,(even a Black man they think is "safe" and who makes them feel comfy). There are AA's who believe, rightly or wrongly that to nominate a Black man on the Dem side, is to insure a loss in the General Election. BTW, there are also Black people and white people here, who believe that to nominate Hillary is to insure a loss in the General Election. So it's just a matter of who Dems feel, who is less of a longshot. Some of us, because of our past experience with mighty whitey, feel that Hillary is less of a longshot. To be honest, if there was a white man on the Dem side, who people thought had any chance whatsoever or who wasn't a total dud, Hillary and Obama would be in trouble, because most Dems would vote for the viable white man(Black and white Dems I mean), cause they want to WIN in November. The way I see it, this is probably the year to take a chance and vote for someone Black, because the way I analyze it, as long as the Republicans can prop up a white man with a pulse on their side, that person, is going to become attractive to large numbers of white people(no matter how much of a loser he is) and have a shot at winning against Hillary or Obama, just because he's a white man, and they are not.......Call me cynical, but that's how I see it.

There have been Black candidates on the govenor level, like Doug Wilder in VA, and Tom Bradley in California, who according to the polls should have won HANDILY in those states. Wilder did win, by 1 point, mainly because of the large number of BLack folks in VA. Bradley lost 2 times to unknown, nondescript white candidates, in spite of being a law and order type dude(former police chief), and mayor of Los Angeles for years. White folks supposedly loved Bradley and told pollsters they were going to vote for him. They went into the voting booths and did the exact opposite of what they said they would do. Whites who normally voted for Democrats switched and voted Republican, rather than vote for a N*gger, when it came down to it, in "LIBERAL" California. It happened in other cities/states,as well. The media even gave the phenomenon a name, the "Bradley Effect". It basically means that white people will lie to pollsters about who they are going to vote for,switch and vote for the opposite party that they normally vote for and some more ish, when it comes to voting for a BLack person. Have the masses of white folks changed in that regard? That remains to be seen, but you can understand why a lot of AA's are not banking on that. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes.......

Going with your theory perhaps I guess thats why they (whites) are seemingly as you said supporting Obama now (knowing they will be dumping him soon), who knows...though it might be "safe" to vote for the white choice hillary that will not put off white democrats ,but does that become the lingering legacy for any black/part black aspirants...why should any black/part black person bother to go into politics at all then??
I totally get your point about being bitten, but it does make you wonder what the way forward will be... Miracles can happen, but noone will ever know if they don't try...




Black folks didn't support Arnold in his bid for govenor, to my knowledge he ran as a Republican and most of us are Democrats,,and like I stated before, Arnold can't run for president because he is not native born, that is a law. THere have been some part Black presidents,lol, there is a book called 5 BLack presidents as a matter of fact, and one of them is still living,(most people just don't know it cause they were passing for white, but that's a whole other discussion). The bottom line is, AA's don't have to prove that we will vote for white people, partially white people,partially Black people, or BLack people, we have and will vote for all of the above, we do it everyday. It is WHITE people who have yet to show that THEY will vote for anybody other than a white person in any significant way, in any significant numbers.


I understand your point, but I hope you realised I meant part-black people who were obviously so, "not passing ones" or dare I say ones married to "white women" (like you said that would just start a whole 'nother discussion). Hopefully the whites will vote for him (obviously he needs the bulk)...just that if black people convince themselves not to do it with no faults on his side ,you've said AA have done it all the time and will continue doing it, but the reason we're having this discussion is because some are saying they won't this time and not for the reasons you have given , but scarily random/self depracating reasons...which is fully their choice to exercise come polling day....
Re: Arnold, I wasn't even talking about him becoming president ,I just meant it did him no harm amongst white people like himself that he is essentially a foreigner,and this was in response to what you said about some AA's having an issue with Obama because he wasn't "deep-rootedly cultural" to america though still essentially american enough to have a valid right to go for presidency...

I didn't say they were simple. I said that they are not as clever or as complex as some of us and them, seem to think they are, or as some of our ass-backwards ways of dealing with them, makes it SEEM like they are. Our inability or unwillingness to learn from the past, and observe their ways and adjust, is proof of our lack of intellect, adaptability,and enduring self loathing(more than anything else), as a collective, not proof of their superior, or even above average intellect. In other words,whites are not all that smart, but they don't need to be, when dealing with us or any other non whites. It's kind of like a person who has always been the smartest person in the room, or in their circle, so they think they are really smart, until they get around some people who are REALLY smart, and find out that in reality they've just been associating with a bunch of morons,lol.

Those Black folks who CAN peep white folks,peep them quite easily, and don't even have to strain their brains, is my point.

[quote=menzzingos;1455731]
I understood what you meant, I just decided to throw the 5 BLack president thing in there for fun, and because it's true. BLack people don't consider people who 'pass" for white, to be Black. In most instances we don't even have any interest in blowing their cover. They go their way and we go our way.

White people don't have to concern themselves as much, with those who look like them selling them out. So you're right, they didn't even blink about Aaanold being foreign. No matter how much they may bicker with each other as white americans/white germans/white austrians/white brits, they all intuitvely clique up when it comes to white western supremacy and domination. Beyond that, they dont' tolerate and coddle traitors and sell outs like we do, as a consequence they don't tend to have them in the numbers that we do. Even at that, they don't want whites from other countries running for President. So even they understand that everybody that looks like you ain't your friend in every situation. Remember, these are the white folks who shed the blood of their own brothers and cousins in Britain, rather than live in tyranny. So they know for a fact that people who look like you are capable of defecating on you and not intending you good.

African Americans have enough experience and dealings with BLacks from other places to know, that they sometimes don't understand or empathize with our experience, at least not until they have been here for a good while. Some of them even dismiss our accounts of our experience and get their heads all gassed up by white folks who treat them a little better when they come here and put on an act for them, etc. Start putting stock in and taking pride in the fact that white folks "like them better", than they do AA's/would rather deal with them. They usually only maintain that until they get their N*GGER wake up call, as it were, but still, .......

We know and understand that any Black person who has roots here, be they part BLack or full Black is already going to know the real deal in regards to that kind of thing. Their psyche and mindset is going to be formed in a certain way, cause they have no choice, BUT to have the N*gger experience here(their parents had it their grandparents had it, etc, etc),, unless they are willing and able to pass for white, so their responses/reactions are going to be in line with that experience. The only ones who don't follow that trajectory are Toms' and sellouts, and they are usually pretty easy to spot, ESPECIALLY when they have deep roots here. In other words, what formed and bonds AA's is not our common "color", or our common "race", what formed/ bonds us is our common EXPERIENCE here. So anyone who hasn't had that experience can't be assumed or necessarily expected to be on the same page, so to speak. That's it in a nutshell.

Thanks Gmahogany, but it was ignorance on my part. I borrowed the Dyson book from the library SPECIFICALLY to find out about Micheal King, the man....not Martin Luther King the public figure.

I was thrown off by an angry white guy years ago who was talking about King in ways that I wasn't able to either believe or refute...like the fact that he was born Micheal King....and other relatively irrelevant things. I forced myself to get the book cause Dyson might overly use flowery language but he wasn't afraid to talk about the man...warts and all.

Dyson's language isn't suited to books....it comes off as being too verbose and I never read the full book.

Again thanks... gotta read the full book.
------------------------------------


Shemsi,

Am I reading it wrong or are you coming down harder on King than on the white guy you were following before his prejudices were revealed to you?

Not to give too much away but my father attended Morehouse College with King and he told me alot about King the man.That in no way distracts from what he accomplished which basically changed the course of history of the United States.

Being an Uncle Tom is about a lifestyle. It isn't about one act. I know what you are saying about Barack Obama. But whenever he is pictured sitting with his wife and those two little cute "Black" babies, I just can't help but pull for him.

I know, that's weak. But lately, I just haven't seen much "Black" love. And it would be nice to have an example on display of a "Black" man, loving his "Black" wife, and his "Black" children. I guess I am just so thankful for that small little piece of scrap from the table.

Yeah, it would be nice. For all we know now, he is just like all the other Democrats with lynching policies only he's wrapped in brown skin. Which tells me most people voting for Obama or Clinton are doing so solely because Obama is "black", Clinton is a woman, or because of Clinton's former-President husband. However, I cannot possibly see how people are even thinking when they don't know the policies/issues the candidate endorses.

I am not coming down hard on either of them. I just don't like how MLK is glorified as if his principles or even endeavors are something that we as African people should aspire to. He was a man, and considering his lack of dignity to tell Africans in the South that if there is any blood in the streets "let it be Negro blood", he was a very troubled man consumed by self-hatred.

When it comes to Ron Paul, I'm sure nearly every President elected to office have spoken the same way when not being recorded. Like I said, we cannot expect any candidate to do right by us. All we can do is look for the best opportunity for us in this country to advance and become self-determined/self-sufficient and I see that best opportunity for that in Ron Paul.

It's interesting...your pragmatic approach, that despite the racism words and actions of Paul, that his election would provide the best opportunities for Blacks to move forward.....mirrors the pragmatic approach that King applied to fight for civil rights.

You dismissed Paul's comments as something that all elected Presidents have said privately. King took virulent white racism and violence as a fact. The long term approach he took, adopted from Ghandi , was to take the "moral highground".

He had some things in common with Ghandi in that both men were from privileged backgrounds within their races and saw white oppression from another perspective than the masses of their people. Rather than just be well educated well compensated pets to the system, they did their best to change the condition of THEIR people.

King ,I'm certain, was aware of Ghandhi history supporting the imperial white system but I think he understood the Ghandhi figured things out and realized he was just a lapdog to the power structure and smartened up.

I will never agree or endorse every thing that King or any other Black leader did/does.....but he is a CENTRAL figure in the struggle to change the civil rights laws on the books in America.

King got PERMISSION from the parents of the young kids who marched that one time surely to be beaten by cops/rioters.....and when the tv news cameras showed these animals attacking children....that was one of the biggest victories for the civil rights movement in terms of getting broader support from americans and people abroad. This was one of the turning points of the struggle.

You obviously don't know how and why the IRS was created, and why the Federal Income Tax is not even a legitimate tax (Constitutionally).

Official Trailer for AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM

Candidates have been saying that for years...Keyes,etc

It's an intellectual debate....but in PRACTICAL terms....federal tax will never be eliminated.....

Wesley Snipes is gonna go to jail because he espoused the same argument...but he was foolish enough to carry it out.

The reason intellectuals aren't leaders is because theory, abstract ideas are not as easy to enact s they are to talk endlessly about.


Any person running for national office claiming to be serious about dismantling the IRS in the next 25 years..... is engaging in intellectual masturbtion.....and just talking

I would say there is a reason Welsey Snipes is not getting the press coverage any other celebrity should. As soon as the news comes out, then the people will revolt because there is no law requiring us to pay taxes. If the particulars of this case actually make the headline news, this country would go into civil unrest...guaranteed.

Snipes may look foolish to many, but he may turn out to be a hero in the end yielding a Messiah Effect.

If you vote for him after reading this then you might be an uncle tom.


Guilt by association
US elections 2008: Ron Paul says he had no knowledge of the bigoted remarks printed in newsletters that bear his name. The press should investigate further
Dan Kennedy

Not long ago Tim Russert, the host of NBC's Meet the Press, was interviewing Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate who's become a darling of the libertarian netroots for his vehement debate performances and unstinting opposition to the war in Iraq.

Among other things, Russert asked Paul about a statement he'd once made objecting to Abraham Lincoln's going to war.

"We'd still have slavery," Russert said.

"Oh, come on, Tim," Paul replied, claiming that slavery would have withered away on its own soon enough, perhaps with the help of some cash payments to slave-owners.

Russert let it pass. But he had, in fact, gingerly poked at the most vexing question about Paul and his insurgent campaign. Paul is justly celebrated for his outspoken devotion to personal liberty and blunt talk about a federal government that is increasingly seen as oppressive and out of touch. Over the years, though, Paul has also demonstrated either (take your pick) a weird affinity for, or obliviousness to, neo-Confederates, homophobes, anti-Semites and others who've been attracted to his iconoclastic views.

Paul's proximity to such views is rarely broached by the mainstream media. Last week, though, the New Republic magazine gave the issue a thorough airing. The piece, by James Kirchick, noted that during the 1980s and 1990s Paul was involved in publishing several newsletters under such names as Ron Paul's Freedom Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report that expressed opinions his young, idealistic Facebook supporters would no doubt find shocking.

To cite just two of many, many examples, a Paul newsletter had this to say in 1990 about the creation of a federal holiday honouring the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr: "What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." And Aids was once described as "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby".

What complicates efforts to learn the truth about Paul's views, as Kirchick acknowledges, is that the newsletters rarely included bylines, although the articles were structured in such a way that the reader could infer that they had been written by Paul himself. In fact, Paul has disavowed them, claiming in a rebuttal on his website that he had little knowledge of the hateful rants.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit," he said. "Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

And yet the stories persist. On December 24, the day after Paul's appearance on Meet the Press, New York Times culture critic Virginia Heffernan wrote on a Times blog about claims that Paul was receiving support, moral and otherwise, from white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Though Heffernan's item contained a small error regarding a campaign contribution, her tone was appropriately sceptical, and was dependent largely on a post on Little Green Footballs, a conservative blog.

Nevertheless, Heffernan was smacked down in an editor's note, which took her to task for passing along "unverified assertions" and for failing to obtain a response from Paul. In other words, a Times blogger was punished for blogging. (I've e-mailed Times public editor Clark Hoyt suggesting that he address this in a future column.)

Ron Paul may be guilty of nothing more than naïveté. But the TNR findings deserve a broader audience, especially if it turns out that Paul's newsletter rants are part of a pattern that persists to this day. The question of whether Paul is or is not a racist nut keeps percolating in blogland. It's time for the major news organisations to take this on.

No, Paul's not going to be elected president. But he matters. He raised some $20m during the last three months of 2007, and he seems like a good bet to mount an independent campaign for president once he can no longer keep up the pretence of seeking the Republican nomination. (He wasn't exactly Shermanesque in denying his interest when Russert asked him about it. And, after all, he did run for president as a libertarian in 1988.)

If Paul does run as an independent, what few votes he gets are likely to come from antiwar activists disaffected by the equivocations of the Democratic nominee. At the very least, those folks need to know precisely for whom they are voting.

If you read further into this thread, you would know that these allegations have been addressed in the convo here already.

Shemsi.... who told you that there is no law requiring people to pay taxes?

Did you confirm that yourself ? Because I've heard the argument before ...and I've found a huge hole in it.