posted
^ You obviously haven't met my cook. {God..does she make great Callaloo!} She's from the islands and is a regular Angela Davis. She looks like her too. Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HORUS^*^: ^WHAT do you YOU think is the SOLUTION?
The solution is for blacks to begin working on building their OWN networks of support and advancement that DO NOT depend promises and lies from a political system that largely does nothing for them. And at the same token, demand MORE of the black politicians who ARE in office, who often take advantage of their SKIN COLOR to get elected, but do NOTHING for those that voted for them in the first place.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HORUS^*^: ^WHAT do you YOU think is the SOLUTION?
The solution is for blacks to begin working on building their OWN networks ...
Isn't this what alTakruri is promoting? as opposed to complaining?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is complaining? I said that Obama is no savior for black folks and does not represent change for a system that has done NOTHING for black folks over the last 300 years, even WITH black politicians at various levels. I could count the number of truly PROGRESSIVE black politicians who actually DID something for their communities on one hand. My favorite being Harold Washington of Chicago.
That is not complaining. That is a statement of MY perspective on American politics.
Like I said, people who are frustrated are FRUSTRATED because they KNOW that blacks are STILL struggling to achieve true progress and betterment. But some would like to posture and pretend that this isn't the case, hence a lot of empty rhetoric.
If something is a problem then noting it isn't complaining, it is the first step towards FIXING it. IGNORING it only prolongs the problem. And for too long black folks have been IGNORING the reality that they must BUILD THEIR OWN as opposed to wasting all their time trying to become glorified WHITE AMERICANS in black face.
The debate between integrationists and nationalists among blacks is not new. These ideas are old and have been around for a long time. Again, trying to lump this into a Al Takrur vs Doug M kind of debate is a sign of a seriously LACKING of understanding of the issues and dynamics among black folks in America as well as the diaspora and an example of the rhetoric that is spewed because SOME people are to PROUD to admit that things ain't as perfect as they want them to be.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Um, I never said you were complaining though I can see how you might have thought I implied that. All I said was, alTakruri proposes solutions for nation building.
I am actually a "nationalist" and not an "integrationist" which means I believe that until we start building African institutions - on the LAND of Africa or ONLINE, we're just going round in circles.
Additionally, I think Africans also have a claim to that land of America so there could be some sort integration possibilities there but in an equal sense - not the bullshit that's actually been going on. Personally, I don't care about America though African-Americans should. My focus is on Nigeria/West-Africa.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar/Mystery Solver/Ausarian/Troll Shredder/Ban Master:
[...]and Obama's recent denounciation of Rev Wright is a clear indicator of this. He is pandering to his ruling 'elite' social base, to assure them that the speak of 'change' is nothing more than empty campaign 'populist' rhetoric to get him elected, but that he is no radical for real social change. It is also a tacit reassurance to the said social base, of his abilility to make "tough decisions" and hence, the "ruthlessness" deemed necessary to be the Comander-in-chief of the United States.
In short - Obama is really the status quo - NOT change - whose appeal is to put a "new face" [whether it is being a relatively unknown newcomer to the scene, or for his "exotic" characterizations] on the "image-tattered" U.S. imperialism both domestically and abroad.
The sad part of all this in Obama's efforts, is that there real concern in some quarters of the Democractic party that he could well turn out to be just another "Ducacus" - hence, Clinton's argument about Obama's "electability" and insistence on staying in the race.
In his denunciation of the [manchurian?] candidate, I wonder whether Supercar understands the following, whether he has become victom to a conspirationist mentallity, or whether he can state why Obama "is" the status quo [and nothing more?]:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Wright's pettiness for 15 minutes of fame hurt Obama's candidacy. Despite any good Wright has done for upwardly mobile blacks in Chitown, reissuance posturing will never make him a Malcolm X.
Better had he stifled up and allowed the mulatto his shot at the presidency. Crabs in a barrel tendacies plague the USA blacks.
Before Bass master says anything:
I say this not because of any beef or haterism towards Supa, I actually have great respect for Supa, along with Doug, al, rasol, Dje, Obenga, and others.
I just wonder how Supe knows that Obama is the status quo.
Ok, familiars (familiars to others in the system) surround him, but don't they have to?
And, in a nation that just voted for Bush II because he said he was a Christian, and, as a republican would fight for US,
how can one expect even a well intended individual to not denounce what are surely to be deemed "anti-american" remarks?
Not that the people decide, but yet and still, he had to denounce the remarks.
I don't know the 'truth' in it, but someone on the 'tube told me:
quote:Originally posted by HORUS^*^: Meninarmer/Doug's solution is to re-act. I am a student of both approaches. It's sort of like the immutable relationship between
One could say that to catch a fellow's moving arm, elbow, or fist, punch them in the stomach and subdue them ...
... is ... to be pro -active.
And I agree, in the sense that pro- means positive, I would agree that even to counter attack is to be pro-active.
I'd never buy the "be pro-active" and "not re-active" sayings otherwise.
To be proactive to me, entails survival, while reacting is just.. reacting.
When people stopped chasing the heards and berries and cultivated and bred them, they became pro-active.
If you see impending doom or injury, of course reaction is necissary: but the goal is to find some way, to not only suspend it, but to reverse the situation/survive as well.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: alTakruri definitely has the better argument..
co-sign.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: From a commentator: Dominique , April 30, 2008
quote:If I were not convinced before, I am convinced now that Black folks have lost their minds! To think that Barack Obama is going to advocate issues that disproportionately impact the African-American community when he has turned his back on these issues throughout his campaign is laughable! Why should we elect a Black man who will not stand up for us, when he clearly told a Latino-American crowd in Texas -- as he was pandering for their votes -- that he was the candidate for Latino-Americans? Barack would never state the same for African-Americans, yet we, with low self-esteem, are so starved for representation, that we keep running after this man as if he is our savior. I would elect a chimpanzee for President if the chimpanzee was going to advocate and push for policies that would help the middle and low income and underserved people in this country. What do we need a symbol for? A symbol can't do nothing but represent different things to different people. I'll take courage, strength of character, strong leadership, good policies, proven track record, and a bias for action anyday over symbolism! All in all, if Black folks can't hold Barack's feet to the fire during the campaign, we can forget getting anything out of him during a Barack presidency. The man has turned his back on his own pastor of 20 years. . .what do you think who will do for you? Stay tuned for more of the same during a Barack presidency.
What a hypocrite, coward and a chickenshit!! he is, that Barak Obama !!!
What chickenshit this crabbish propaganda is. These selfish, race-obsessed loons somehow can't get it through their egotistical heads what Obama represents and what his candidacy signifies. If it isn't a degenerate bucket crab like Rev. Wright, then it's somebody else trying to undermine unity with their black separatist, Marcus Garvey nonsense trying to be applied to 21rst century politics. Old dinosaur mentality
rofl!!!!
I see you love that old Asian crab basket addage (according to someone I know, an Asian lady told them the saying, and said that 'blacks were like [the] crabs in a basket).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Damn Gigalos making off with the Clampet clan oil money. Geez, it's a business not a relationship, and those brothers also get the finest babes the great white race has to offer (can't see what's going on behind the rented doors of the wealthy and their sex parties where even husbands rent the gigalos (sometimes 2 at a time to **** their wives while they take a seat light a cigar and watch).
It's just a business. Business is business.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!. . .
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: I've traveled much more and seen many things then you. Last time in the carribean I saw many old white women there paying brothers for sex on the beach. They looked like Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies, but them brothers walked around like they had Shelia E.
Naw bruh, it's called: Mon-ey.
But on the serious side I was shocked and amazed to have found out about this secret white fetish as I got older.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point I am making is that my position is not about trying to "compete" in ideologies. That is silly. NOBODY owns black empowerment ideologies. I cannot claim to be some great black thinker and ideologue who invented black nationalist thought. The point is that most Africans in America don't even know who Garvey was or anything about the integrationist versus nationalist struggle, even thought THAT STRUGGLE is STILL having a profound impact on the day to day lives of blacks to this day. Just as Nkruma's struggle for nationalism is still a profound factor in the struggle for the improvement of the lives of Africans TO THIS DAY.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blacks who wan't a resolution within the system versus Blacks who wan't a resolution outside the system (by this I mean Blacks who want to build a NEW Blacks-oriented system).
I am on the side of the latter as the former does not appeal to me as a Nigerian. I don't want to have a high paying job within Exxon-Mobil in Nigeria, I want US to own our own oil and the companies that commercialise it.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black republicans are a (growing) minority, but they are Pro-system. Many of the TV and radion personalities are pro-system. Randell Robinson (see video above) is very successful (TransAfrica), but just relinquished his American citizenship and moved to Saint Thomas. Steve Wonder moved to Africa, and many more wealthy blacks have migrated out of the country also.
Last time in Paris, I was amazed at the large number of US blacks I met from Chicago (Jazz club), Detroit (Soul Food diner), Baltimore (Musician) who've moved to France and opened small businesses. They say they like their new lives and they'll never return.
My girlfriend's father, a jazz musician, just moved to Holland, never to return. A friend I grew up with, a member of P-Funk, just moved to Paris, never to return. http://www.myspace.com/mudbone2
I believe the majority of US blacks are pro-system, simply because many do not understand how the system works. For example, how they pay taxes and receive no representation, and how those tax dollars are used to implement the very systems and programs that are deployed to contain and oppress them.
I think if more US blacks had the means, many more would simply abandon the US and it's racism.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar/Mystery Solver/Ausarian/Troll Shredder/Ban Master:
[...]and Obama's recent denounciation of Rev Wright is a clear indicator of this. He is pandering to his ruling 'elite' social base, to assure them that the speak of 'change' is nothing more than empty campaign 'populist' rhetoric to get him elected, but that he is no radical for real social change. It is also a tacit reassurance to the said social base, of his abilility to make "tough decisions" and hence, the "ruthlessness" deemed necessary to be the Comander-in-chief of the United States.
In short - Obama is really the status quo - NOT change - whose appeal is to put a "new face" [whether it is being a relatively unknown newcomer to the scene, or for his "exotic" characterizations] on the "image-tattered" U.S. imperialism both domestically and abroad.
The sad part of all this in Obama's efforts, is that there real concern in some quarters of the Democractic party that he could well turn out to be just another "Ducacus" - hence, Clinton's argument about Obama's "electability" and insistence on staying in the race.
In his denunciation of the [manchurian?] candidate, I wonder whether Supercar understands the following, whether he has become victom to a conspirationist mentallity, or whether he can state why Obama "is" the status quo [and nothing more?
...Before Bass master says anything:
I say this not because of any beef or haterism towards Supa, I actually have great respect for Supa, along with Doug, al, rasol, Dje, Obenga, and others.
I just wonder how Supe knows that Obama is the status quo.
Ok, familiars (familiars to others in the system) surround him, but don't they have to?
And, in a nation that just voted for Bush II because he said he was a Christian, and, as a republican would fight for US,
how can one expect even a well intended individual to not denounce what are surely to be deemed "anti-american" remarks?
Not that the people decide, but yet and still, he had to denounce the remarks.
I don't know the 'truth' in it, but someone on the 'tube told me:
The onus is actually on you to demonstrate through facts why you assume Obama represents some radical change in American politics?...because of his "skin color"?
Let me give you a few basic pointers, that any simpleton in politics would grasp:
- Just research the people handling the Obama campaign from 'behind the scenes' and explain to me how they represent radical change in the American political establishment.
— Just research the campaign financers *outside* of modest donations of ordinary Obama supporters. Explain to me, how these financers stand for radical change in the American political establishment.
— Just research Obama's voting record on the funding of the Iraq war, while he tells his supporters that he's always been against this war, and explain the inconsistency.
— Just research Obama's campaign staff member's contact with the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., reassuring the Canadian government that Obama's public speaking out against NAFTA [in campaign trails in Ohio and like places, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses] is just empty campaign rhetoric <<wink, wink>> not to be taken seriously, and demonstrate to me that this is the "new kind of politics" that Obama publically espouses to his supporters.
— Just research Obama's claim to bring troops home immediately, while his campaign staff—including himself—on other occasions say that the troop withdrawal will actually take longer, and that there would still be presence of US troops in Iraq, presumably to "defend the US embassy'. Read the follow quotes from Obama, in the "Foreign Affairs" monthly publication dated to July 2007, and demonstrate to me, how this is a "new kind of politics" in American foreign policy, and therefore represents change:
“To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world.”
“We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”
“[The US] must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power—political, economic, and military—could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.”
“The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.”
“We must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out Al Qaeda.”
“It is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of US forces.”
“I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.”
“To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America’s civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.”
On Israel...
“Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region—a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability.”
On Iran...
“[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”
“I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”
On Pakistan...
“I think there are elements within Pakistan right now—if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over—I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.” [the sort of "calculations" being talked about in the citation immediately above]
On market and economic issues, taken from his "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream",...
“that is not all that I am.... I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised.... I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military.”
Obama makes this adoration for "free market clear, in a speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan "before a select Wall Street audience":
“I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation.”
Elsewhere, i.e. in his "The Audacity of Hope":
“All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980...I understood his appeal.... Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.”
On social welfare programs, from the same book...
“We should also acknowledge that conservatives—and Bill Clinton—were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work, and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self-respect. Any strategy to reduce intergenerational poverty has to be centered on work, not welfare.”
Clinton for her part, tried to capitalize on the following revelation, so as to show voters just how ordinary a politician Obama was:
Pressed by an interviewer on the BBC’s “Hardtalk” program, Power said: "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," adding that the Obama plan was a "best-case scenario" that he "will revisit when he becomes president." - Los Angelos times; March 8, 2008.
On China, he says:
“The Chinese are everywhere throughout Africa. They are building roads . . . bridges . . . government buildings . . . hospitals.”
“We’re not doing that because we don’t think it is important and, over time, that’s going to have an enormous impact on us,”
---
Essentially, what I get from these quotes, is that Mr. Obama isn't really the 'anti-war' candidate that he publically promotes himself to be; he is essentially complaining about the failed policies—not the idea of waging war against the Iraqis on dubious premises—which have resulted in the bogging down of the U.S. military in Iraq and hence, tying down the "overstretched" military in the event that the U.S. wants to wage imperialistic wars elsewhere to protect its "national interests".
Don't know about you, but the above seems pretty much like the same "old politics" of Washington to ensure that US hegemony maintained, and henceforth, use of military threat to ensure unchallenged control over the world's natural resources deemed important to the "national interests" of American ruling elite and financial oligarchy; but hey, since Obama's campaign doesn't represent the "status quo", what-box will demonstrate to us how these citations of Obama represent radical change in Washington politics.
To put it in his own terms, with regards to the so-called “phased redeployment”:
“protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end.”
"[if]the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration,” then, “this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment”
And on Fox News,...
Fox’s Chris Wallace: “Senator, this week President Bush named David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, to be the head of Central Command.... Will you vote to confirm his nomination?”
Obama: “Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq. I think as a practical matter, obviously, that’s where most of the attention has been devoted from this administration over the last several years.”
“My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interests.”
— Remember the following, on Israel...
“Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region—a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability.”
Now read, from Middle East Times, dated to Feb 01, 2008:
"...staunch support of Israel came as a surprise to one of Obama's old supporters, Ali Abunimah, who runs the pro-Palestine Electronic Intifada Web site.
"Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago, including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker," Abunimah recalled.
"In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of U.S. policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.'"
...which is consistent with the following, from Los Angelos Times, April 10, 2008:
the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.
"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.
"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."
Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.
Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations...
In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.
"He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."
Demonstrate to us, what-box, how this represents "change" in Washington style politics and radical social change.
— Just go through Obama's response to the sound bytes of his pastor the first time around there was media barrage on the issue, about never having heard those messages in the 20 years or so that he's had associations with the pastor, and attending the church. "A new kind of politics", and "change", eh what-box?
Last Monday, Rev. Wright had repeated just about everything we had heard in the sound bytes that prompted Obama to make that so-called "race-relations" speech, but it is only now that he decides to throw the man under the bus?! The only difference now, is that Mr. Wright correctly pointed out that Obama's just another politician, hence not really an agent of true change.
— Go ahead and produce a list of Obama's track record in the Senate and notable accomplishments in U.S. politics, and demonstrate how these represent radical "change" to the status quo.
— As a matter of fact, *besides health care* and the issue of applying "carrot-and-stick diplomacy" with countries like Iran and Cuba, can you list **significant** differences between Hillary Clinton's overall political philosophy and that of Barack Obama's. If not, then why pick Obama, as opposed to Clinton; and does this mean, that Clinton too is agent of radical "change" of U.S. politics?
Attend to these requests, and then we can deal with other details of "change" that you intend to demonstrate about Obama's candidacy.
It's always a good idea to make sure you do adequate research before you take on the politically-affluent folks!
Posts: 233 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic