SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks

[Dancing Mustard]

The Humpback.

Obv.

[jonesthecurl]

Free Wales!

Gymru am Byth.

[b.k. barunt]

People do your country a favor, support neither of the two candidates. Vote 3rd party. It is the ONLY way to change things.

Yes, in theory, but in real life? They've already shown us that the popular vote is easily overruled, and if someone who would oppose the powers that be actually got in . . .
Do the initials JFK ring any bells? The only way to change things is armed revolution, and they have all the good weapons.


Honibaz

[MeDeFe]

People do your country a favor, support neither of the two candidates. Vote 3rd party. It is the ONLY way to change things.

Damn right! Vote luns101!

[Ditocoaf]

3rd party candidates are seen as illegitimate by the uncaring majority. The way to get out of this two-party cycle is to push for removing the parties' official status and hold on the election. This is more likely than it sounds, because once a politician is in office, they are a lot less bound to their party. In Washington State, the state election primaries have just changed dramatically.

The main problem that I can see is that the two largest parties' candidates are chosen by public election. This is BS. They are private institutions, and having a public "primary" election gives them a legal status as part of the nation's government. Ideally, we would have a NO party system, where each candidate runs on his or her own merits and beliefs. But since a candidate will inevitably get funding and advertising from a party (which is the _only_ legitimate function of a political party), we cannot keep such parties down. The thing that is improved with removing the primary election: now, it is a completely open election, with anybody running who wants to. There isn't a "weeding out" process for two candidates, so they lose that added fame and power. Now, a third party candidate can win, because they're not an "alternative" to a choice, they're a choice in themselves.

[oVo]

I think he is a little more like the Democrat version of Richard Nixon.

You see Obama as a paranoid, power obsessed politician, who believes only his way is right for America
and any means necessary to remain in office is OK... so that his agendas can be achieved?

The only question is whether on not McCain has sold out, or will he still steer the maverick course...

McCain/Palin are labelled as mavericks for change who will put "country first: reform, prosperity and peace." But they are both conservative Republicans, so the fine print still reads "more of the same." They are the curious pairing of a priviledged and experienced elder insider and an inexperienced female outsider... which bring all sorts of interesting scenarios to mind if they win. After the way Bush blindsided McCain with his Rove slime attacks in 2000, I do believe he will do anything to get elected this time out.

Who are the other major candidates and will anyone even notice they're there? Right now I see Obama as the closest thing to change and a definite departure from where the oval office has gone over the past two terms. With the exception of the choices made by George Bush, I'm not convinced that the Dems are a better party than the Reps... but they may be the lesser of evils and might just surprise the World by getting a few priorities right. The other guys in this race have no chance, as the two major parties are way too strong to get bumped off by any of them... they can only effect the outcome with the votes they secure... if it is a close election.

Thanks for the link to On the Issues gdeangel.

[Snorri1234]

Right now I see Obama as the closest thing to change and a definite departure from where the oval office has gone over the past two terms. With the exception of the choices made by George Bush, I'm not convinced that the Dems are a better party than the Reps... but they may be the lesser of evils and might just surprise the World by getting a few priorities right.

Word. I don't agree with Obama on all of his stuff and I don't think he will really bring that "change" so much, but compared to McCain and Palin whom I disagree with on nearly everything Obama isn't that bad of a choice.

The other guys in this race have no chance, as the two major parties are way too strong to get bumped off by any of them... they can only effect the outcome with the votes they secure... if it is a close election.

Yup. It's sad that there are only 2 parties that really matter. You can't always vote for who you really like.
But on the other hand I think the smaller parties who compete in the election also make it worse for some candidates. Sometimes a candidate or party loses because off people not voting for him for not being right/left enough, which is a shame because it plays in the hand of the other party.

[ksslemp]

People do your country a favor, support neither of the two candidates. Vote 3rd party. It is the ONLY way to change things.

Yes, in theory, but in real life? They've already shown us that the popular vote is easily overruled, and if someone who would oppose the powers that be actually got in . . .
Do the initials JFK ring any bells? The only way to change things is armed revolution, and they have all the good weapons.


Honibaz

Yes!! Damn those bastards for following the laws. UGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

[boogiesadda]

KILL <NS EDIT>!!!!!!!!!!

[heavycola]

3rd party candidates are seen as illegitimate by the uncaring majority. The way to get out of this two-party cycle is to push for removing the parties' official status and hold on the election. This is more likely than it sounds, because once a politician is in office, they are a lot less bound to their party. In Washington State, the state election primaries have just changed dramatically.

The main problem that I can see is that the two largest parties' candidates are chosen by public election. This is BS. They are private institutions, and having a public "primary" election gives them a legal status as part of the nation's government. Ideally, we would have a NO party system, where each candidate runs on his or her own merits and beliefs. But since a candidate will inevitably get funding and advertising from a party (which is the _only_ legitimate function of a political party), we cannot keep such parties down. The thing that is improved with removing the primary election: now, it is a completely open election, with anybody running who wants to. There isn't a "weeding out" process for two candidates, so they lose that added fame and power. Now, a third party candidate can win, because they're not an "alternative" to a choice, they're a choice in themselves.

This is far too sensible. Also, each election campaign should be state-funded, on either side of the atlantic. This would help eliminate suggestions of sleaze and would level the playing field for everyone. Of course it would mean an extra 50p tax per person per year and that simply won't do. i work too hard etc etc.

[Nobunaga]

3rd party candidates are seen as illegitimate by the uncaring majority. The way to get out of this two-party cycle is to push for removing the parties' official status and hold on the election. This is more likely than it sounds, because once a politician is in office, they are a lot less bound to their party. In Washington State, the state election primaries have just changed dramatically.

The main problem that I can see is that the two largest parties' candidates are chosen by public election. This is BS. They are private institutions, and having a public "primary" election gives them a legal status as part of the nation's government. Ideally, we would have a NO party system, where each candidate runs on his or her own merits and beliefs. But since a candidate will inevitably get funding and advertising from a party (which is the _only_ legitimate function of a political party), we cannot keep such parties down. The thing that is improved with removing the primary election: now, it is a completely open election, with anybody running who wants to. There isn't a "weeding out" process for two candidates, so they lose that added fame and power. Now, a third party candidate can win, because they're not an "alternative" to a choice, they're a choice in themselves.

This is far too sensible. Also, each election campaign should be state-funded, on either side of the atlantic. This would help eliminate suggestions of sleaze and would level the playing field for everyone. Of course it would mean an extra 50p tax per person per year and that simply won't do. i work too hard etc etc.

... Hell, cut one or two useless programs and that will fund the major party campaigns for a few years or more.

... Ban TV commercials, which have turned elections into little more than money contests, and require a minimum of five debates, each with very specific themes, so everybody can watch and judge for themselves.

... Debate topics.... Energy, Environment (Climate scare stuff), Foreign Affairs/Foreign Policy, Domestic Issues, Financial Issues/Economy.

... Or something like that. And have no in-house cheer squads during the debate (no studio audience) to distract.

...

[oVo]

That would make way too much sense Nobunga. Anyone heard any figures on the ridiculous amount of money being spent to elect these guys?

Then again it can all be very confusing. Why are people comparing Palin and Obama? McCain's his opponant.
This is not my research and compliation, it's copied and pasted from elsewhere.

If you grow up in Hawaii and are raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow,Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate 's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees,
you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: television sportscaster, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people,
then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex ed ucation, including the proper use of birth control,
you are eroding the fiber of society.

If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant ,
you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family,
your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

[Ditocoaf]

3rd party candidates are seen as illegitimate by the uncaring majority. The way to get out of this two-party cycle is to push for removing the parties' official status and hold on the election. This is more likely than it sounds, because once a politician is in office, they are a lot less bound to their party. In Washington State, the state election primaries have just changed dramatically.

The main problem that I can see is that the two largest parties' candidates are chosen by public election. This is BS. They are private institutions, and having a public "primary" election gives them a legal status as part of the nation's government. Ideally, we would have a NO party system, where each candidate runs on his or her own merits and beliefs. But since a candidate will inevitably get funding and advertising from a party (which is the _only_ legitimate function of a political party), we cannot keep such parties down. The thing that is improved with removing the primary election: now, it is a completely open election, with anybody running who wants to. There isn't a "weeding out" process for two candidates, so they lose that added fame and power. Now, a third party candidate can win, because they're not an "alternative" to a choice, they're a choice in themselves.

This is far too sensible. Also, each election campaign should be state-funded, on either side of the atlantic. This would help eliminate suggestions of sleaze and would level the playing field for everyone. Of course it would mean an extra 50p tax per person per year and that simply won't do. i work too hard etc etc.

... Hell, cut one or two useless programs and that will fund the major party campaigns for a few years or more.
cut one or two useless programs, and don't discriminate funding based on party. A large part of our problems, in my opinion, originate in the concept of two parties having official status. If a narrowing of the feild is needed, have a party-less primary.
... Ban TV commercials, which have turned elections into little more than money contests, and require a minimum of five debates, each with very specific themes, so everybody can watch and judge for themselves.
It'd be tough to ban TV commercials, because most of them aren't even bought by the campaigns themselves but separate groups. If you banned candidates from being mentioned in commercials, then you'd risk people "buying airtime" in regular programming... it's a major problem. I like the minimum of 5 debates, though.
... Debate topics.... Energy, Environment (Climate scare stuff), Foreign Affairs/Foreign Policy, Domestic Issues, Financial Issues/Economy.
yes!
... Or something like that. And have no in-house cheer squads during the debate (no studio audience) to distract.
sure
...

[Nobunaga]

... Or, 5 debates and 1 wrestling match.

...

[Frigidus]

... Or, 5 debates and 1 wrestling match.

...

Or 5 wrestling matches and 1 debate.

[GabonX]

I'm planning on responding to this thread with a post similar to the one in the "violence without guns" thread but I don't have the time just yet. For the record I have read the book and it is deeply disturbing, not only in it's rhetoric, but also that people are willing to shrug it off without examining the greater context (which does not make his writings any less devious). It's discouraging that so many people are willing to assume that I hadn't read it and it's no surprise that these are the same people who are willing to disregard the meaning of Obama's words and assume that he couldn't possibly be saying anything offensive.

Just wanted to give you all something to look forward to!

[markito]

In this passage Sen. Obama is writing about his personal experience with the Black Nation theory and movement, and the feeling that it causes in him (right there in the last paragraph) is "anguish." Half of his family is white, so to suggest that he harbors animosity towards white people is laughable. His fear of inadvertently ingraciating himself with his white friends is evidence of the complicated legacy of race in the US and the unique challenges faced by people of mixed ethnicity.

I would encourage anyone interested in an honest treatment of the subject of race in America to read the speech Obama delivered in Philadelphia on the subject of race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/

[heavycola]

I'm planning on responding to this thread with a post similar to the one in the "violence without guns" thread but I don't have the time just yet. For the record I have read the book and it is deeply disturbing, not only in it's rhetoric, but also that people are willing to shrug it off without examining the greater context (which does not make his writings any less devious). It's discouraging that so many people are willing to assume that I hadn't read it and it's no surprise that these are the same people who are willing to disregard the meaning of Obama's words and assume that he couldn't possibly be saying anything offensive.

Just wanted to give you all something to look forward to!

Either you have read it, and yet you're happy to quote this stuff all out of context - which is disingenuous to say the least. Or you haven't. Either way, it's certainly discouraging.

I haven't read the book, although I have searched for and read the passages from which those quotations were taken. And reading them over, it's hard to see anything racist in them.

Take the first quote: why might a mixed-race youngster, who looks black, advertise - i.e. tell people without prompting - his whiteness? And why do you think he might stop doing that? If you can see racism here, you're looking too hard.

Or the second:'And yet, even as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me' - see, his daydreams of following Malcom X are disrupted by that line, not encouraged by it. Seems a reasonable reaction, not that of a white-hating racist.

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation. Seriously, have you read it?