Some **annoying** people LOVE to play those mind games more than anyone else.
(This first comment was from your youtube video, the others were from elsewhere:)
"This guy's [the pastor] stuck on race" - Youtube idiot
"Well, I'm not so much concerned with the racist, hatred filled, and angry sermon, because most black sermons are ..." - Youtube ignoramus who's likely never been to a black church.
"How is it that that I don't believe Obama is the most qualified candidate that makes me a racist?"
Of course, it doesn't, and no one says it does, but the fact that you asked that question does make you a slightly schizophrenic mentally inhibited person. Hey, you may be racist if you didn't vote for Obama but that doesn't make you a racist.
Seriously, a black man speaks on the government and it's racial, yet WE are accused even by our own in the West as being stuck on 'race'??!
It's they who often go un-noticed bringing up the race-card, and whatnot.
That only goes to show how biased people are and how stupid a distraction terms like "race-card, race obsessed, etc" can be when used a certain way.
Now, I know Doug's gonna chime in and say, "Of course, it's all a stage anyway" etc, which it very well may be.
Important questions are what changes might Obama really have in store.
Honestly, if he gets elected, I hope he really does do a good job, and I like the man's mind/stance on things.
However one may want ask who he's surrounding himself with; do they appear significantly different from anyone else? Though of course it would be worth considering the question of whether nonconformity in this or any reguard could ever yield you the desired result - the election - given the apparent conformity of candidates across the board in recent years (regardless of differences in their public "faces"/personas).
The thing that has re-captured my attention to tell y'all the truth is the privacy issue.
By the way, Young Horus, I'm not so sure I would've voted for Paul if I were you in American either, anymore.
Arwa, would you vote John McCain?
and
Doug M., who do you like?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who are the key people BEHIND the politician? That is what counts most and those are the things that determine most how a politician will act in office. Who is behind Bush? Think this has anything to do with the actions of Mr. Bush and the rise of the price of oil and the profits of oil companies? Who is behind Mr. Obama? The American president is just the front man for a larger system, a salesman and actor who is there to take point for the policies and agendas of the interests who call the shots from behind the scenes. These interests are almost ALL white and their agenda WILL NOT CHANGE if Obama becomes president.
quote: So when Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power donned the hairshirt on Friday for having called Hillary Clinton a monster - "I'm just truly sorry at the harm it must have caused her" - the ritual was predictable to most political observers.
But, of course, anyone who follows politics knows that Clinton's camp was probably delighted - not pained - to learn that an Obama adviser had gone off the rails. Ultimately, all the faux outrage would serve to call attention to the Obama campaign's negativity and give Clinton more leeway for her own attacks - and overshadow similar gaffes by Clinton aides earlier in the race.
But if there was a warning for the Obama campaign, it was not about the dangers of negative campaigning. It was about the importance of having a consistent message and an effective chain of command.
Power was the third Obama adviser to stir up a cloud of dust in recent weeks by apparently substituting his or her own views for Obama's: In addition to the "monster" comment, made to a Scottish newspaper, Power told the BBC that Obama's plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months was subject to change once he took office.
Susan Rice, another foreign policy aide, committed the misstep of opining that neither Obama nor Clinton was ready to handle a 3 a.m. phone call announcing a foreign policy crisis. Rice probably meant that no one can be fully prepared for the burdens of the presidency, but John McCain was only too happy to jump on her words and announce that he, at least, feels up to the job.
Perhaps most damaging of all, Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist advising Obama, apparently sought to reassure Canadian officials in the days leading up to the Ohio primary that the senator wasn't really as critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement as he sounded on the stump. A memo produced by the Canadian consulate in Chicago suggested that Goolsbee felt the heated antitrade rhetoric was "political maneuvering."
The actions of Obama's advisers raise as many questions about Obama as about the advisers.
The first is the obvious one: whether he truly intends to follow through on what he's been saying. For most of the campaign, Obama has gotten good mileage out of the idea that he says what he believes while Clinton's plans are hedged to allow for extra maneuverability. But in Obama's effort to stay to Clinton's left on Iraq and NAFTA, he may have gone further than he wanted, or could deliver.
When Clinton, during the Ohio debate, promised to opt out of the trade deal if Canada and Mexico didn't agree to changes, Obama quickly agreed. He later referred to using "the hammer of potential opt-out" to enhance environmental and labor requirements in NAFTA.
Obama may well believe that, and he may intend to stick with his timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq no matter what happens. But if so, he needs to make sure that all his advisers remain with the program.
The key advisors behind Obama are Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ivo Daalder, Susan Rice, and Lawrence Korb. Brzezinski is the man behind the Trilateral commission and one of the key minds behind the "new world order". Ivo Daalder has written many papers on new one world governmental bodies. Susan Rice is a Rhodes Scholar (created from the Trust Fund of the Racist White industrialist Cecil Rhodes). She is African American and has been an assistant secretary of State for Africa under the Clinton administration and is part of the Brookings institution. Of course, what is a Rhodes Scholar doing as assistant secretary of state in Africa other than furthering the destabilization of Africa and promoting the control of African resources by racist white industrialist capitalists? Lawrence Korb is a hawk who is all about the expansion and growth of the global American military presence world wide and the defense of American "interests", whether they be good for Africans or not.
Susan Rices report on the "failed states" in the world for the Brookings institution, which is actually a report on the destabilization of Africa (and she was part of the system that HELPED promote this destabilization), which of course promotes the white industrial capitalist system as the SAVIOR of these states, notwithstanding that the SAME system is the reason for these states being destabilized in the first place: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/02_weak_states_index.aspx
Article on the likeliness of future conflicts and the creation of a "global" democracy:
quote: Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas.
As usual, though, the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong. Throughout its history, America has frequently used force on behalf of principles and tangible interests, and that is not likely to change. Despite the problems and setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America remains the world's dominant military power, spends half a trillion dollars a year on defense and faces no peer strong enough to deter it if it chooses to act. Between 1989 and 2001, Americans intervened with significant military force on eight occasions -- once every 18 months. This interventionism has been bipartisan -- four interventions were launched by Republican administrations, four by Democratic administrations. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the situations in which an American president may have to use force have only grown, whether it is to respond to terrorist threats, to curb weapons proliferation, to prevent genocide or other human rights violations, or to respond to more traditional forms of aggression. ... A policy of seeking consensus among the world's great democratic nations can form the basis for a new domestic consensus on the use of force. It would not exclude efforts to win Security Council authorization. Nor would it preclude using force even when some of our democratic friends disagree. But the United States will be on stronger ground to launch and sustain interventions when it makes every effort to seek and win the approval of the democratic world.
Eventually, perhaps, these matters could be addressed and decided in a more formal arrangement, a Concert of Democracies, where the world's democracies could meet and cooperate in dealing with the many global challenges they confront. Until such a formal mechanism has been created, however, future presidents need to recognize that legitimacy matters, and that the most meaningful and potent form of legitimacy for a democracy such as the United States is the kind bestowed by fellow democrats around the world.
In other words, a new world order where the global industrial power elite control all aspects of human society and the resources fundamental to human life behind a facade of democratic ideals. This is nothing more than a farce that will provide more power and wealth for the industrialists and bankers who have been ruining the world for the last 300 years.
The West has been steadily moving in this direction for the last 200 years and all presidents, democratic and republican, have been making key legislative decisions towards this, for the last 40 or more years.
And nobody has been more instrumental in this than Zebignew Brzeznski. He is the one who formulated and carried out the plan to create the Mujeheddin in Afghanistan via the Pakistani intelligence services. This same program created the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These groups were designed to be used as tools in the grand schemes of the global industrial military elite and to promote the creation of a world government. It is he who lays all of this out in his book the Grand Chessboard.
quote: Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.
Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:
We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again—for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt. Full Text of Interview
Milt Bearden wrote in The Main Enemy that Brzezinski, in 1980, secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar and that Bill Casey would keep that agreement going through the Reagan administration.[17]
In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict comparable to America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap". Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups. Full Text of Interview
In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski says that assistance to the Afghan resistance was a tactic designed to bog down the Soviet army while the United States built up a deterrent military force in the Persian Gulf to prevent Soviet political or military penetration farther south (see: the Carter Doctrine).
In a footnote in his 2000 book The Geostrategic Triad, Brzezinski notes:
The full story of the productive U.S.-China cooperation directed against the Soviet Union (especially in regard to Afghanistan), initiated by the Carter Administration and continued under Reagan, still remains to be told.
The grand triad is nothing but another name of the Trilateral Commission, of which he is one of the founders, with the assistance of Jimmy Carter. It is nothing but another step towards a one world government. And in this new world system, Africa is nothing but a failed continent and economic backwater, that is used by the global industrial powers as a source of resources and cheap labor. But it is a failed continent BECAUSE of these powers and the new global system is designed to REINFORCE and PROMOTE the status of Africa as a backwater and failed continent as well as the destruction of increasing numbers of Africans through wars, disease and poverty.
quote: The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973, at the initiative of David Rockefeller; who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.[1] He pushed the idea of including Japan at the Bilderberg meetings he was attending but was rebuffed. Along with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other people, including individuals from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, he convened initial meetings out of which grew the Trilateral organization.
Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both eventually heads of the Federal Reserve system.
The bottom line is that NONE of these people represent CHANGE in American foreign, domestic, military or economic policies. These people represent the same ideas and strategies as promoted by those behind Bush, but they have conned everyone into thinking that they are different. The difference is in how they present themselves to the public, via their political front men and propaganda but in reality they are all part of the same agenda and Obama is nothing but a salesman for this system in black face.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not only can he never meet the criterion, but he was a coward to deliver his race speech in last Tuesday. Apologising and kissing ass for the White Man for the racism he experienced as a Black man?? And people ask what change does he want to bring -------- The transgression of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, pastor of Barack Obama’s church home of twenty years in Chicago were not Scriptural. Wright questioned white America’s civic religion, its fraudulent self-image as benevolent conqueror and justified leader of the planet. Heretics of this kind are speedily cast from the public American public discourse, despite the fact most of the planet agrees with them. What does it say about the “change” Obama “brings with him” that his “multiracial coalition” seems to depend is eagerly endorsing pernicious lies rather than speaking truth to power. Who will Obama denounce, or be required to denounce next?
Fire and Damnation Awaits Those Who Transgress White America’s Religion
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
quote:“The American Pantheon of gods and demigods is drawn entirely from the “heroes” in the great White/European conquest of North America.”
It was always inevitable that the Barack Obama electoral contraption – that eclectic assemblage rigged to resemble a “movement” on its way to no political destination in particular – would find itself grounded on the ragged shoals of America’s Unnamed Coast. The location of this treacherous yet Unnamed Coast was always common knowledge, and to be avoided at all cost. The problem was, and remains, that the very act of explaining to the uninitiated the nature and whereabouts of the Unnamed Coast reveals irreconcilable truths about the uncertain future of the entire American Archipelago. Very bad for tourism, investments of all kinds, and the ever-volatile national sanity quotient.
However, now that everyone has heard the awful crunching and tearing of the coastal rocks on the hulk of the Good Shipandy_jackson Obama, it’s time to let the secret out: the Unnamed Coast is actually the entrance to the Land of Official and Inviolable American Religion. The entire region is off-limits to all but those designated as Learned Reconcilers – that is, double-talking Sages whose job it is to explain how the United States has no national religion when it is patently clear that the totality of the national mythology amounts to a comprehensive body of faith, packed with superpower potency and globe-consuming threat.
To conceal the existence of the uber-religion from citizens and outsiders alike, great electoral fuss is made over the minor divisions separating Catholics, Protestants, Americanized Jews, and the tolerance shown to all the other religious grouplets that, by their quaint and unassuming presence, make the United States seem the least doctrinaire of all nations.
quote:“Double-talking Sages explain how the United States has no national religion when it is patently clear that the totality of the national mythology amounts to a comprehensive body of faith, packed with superpower potency and globe-consuming threat.”
This past weekend, the American Uber-God and his golden-haired disciples roared down from Mt. Rushmore or Disneyland or wherever they hold forth to lay down The Law of the Origins and Eternal promise of that singular of nations, the United States.
The American Pantheon of gods and demigods is drawn entirely from the “heroes” in the great White/European conquest of North America, the god-sanctioned murder of the vast majority of the original inhabitants, and the kidnapping of millions of Africans to act as “beasts of burden” for the Chosen Whites. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson - all mass murderers, organized rapists, perpetual violators of solemn treaties. To the American school girl and boy, these military butchers are the European equivalent of Saints, Holy personages.
Virtually every song that is sung in public school assemblies, no matter how purportedly “secular,” is a celebration of the Great White Victories over the red, brown, and black people of the America’s and beyond. (“God Bless America,” “This is My Country,” “Star-Spangled Banner,”) The trappings of a Warrior Religion pervade formal and informal white U.S. society.
Race or Religion?
Spearheaded by “researchers” from ABC, white folks “discovered” that retiring Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. had loads of recordings of his sermons available for sale. What the neophyte racial researchers heard shocked their sensibilities to the bone. America was born in a charnal house of mass racial murder and every conceivable abomination to God and Man. This is the great genesis 0f the U.S.A. And it is incontrovertible fact, from which all our racial conflicts and disparities flow.
The real American religion is all about race: the glorification in the conquest of two darker races by the favored white race.
ABC and the rest of the press were initially confused as to how to characterize Dr. Wright’s rather ordinary dissertation on the racist origins and countless crimes of the U.S. Many other Black clerics and statesmen have bequeathed similar assessments to history – although few whites found such documents worthy of attention. Should Dr. Wright’s sermons be listed under “race” or “religion?”
It’s a ridiculous question. The real American religion is all about race: the glorification in the conquest of two darker races by the favored white race. It was God’s will, and Heaven’s sign that the growth and prosperity of the United States is God’s design for the future.
In other words, U.S. Imperialism is sanctified at the Highest Level, according to the prevailing White American Religion,
Black theology and the Black historical world view rejects the religion of the victor, who is also the continued tormentor of people of color around the planet . Yes, God Damn the U.A. for its multitudinous crimes, past, present and future.
Barak Obama thinks he can talk his way out of the confluence of American racism and an American religion that is saturated with racist doctrines and celebrations. It is an impossible task – but one that will keep the talking heads dumbly bobbing in imitation of thought.
posted
What Ford seems to be saying is that no mentally healthy black could ever run for the U.S. presidency and win. Ever, ever, given the heated reaction to Jeremiah Wright's pronouncements.
Is Ford also implying that it was a grave historical error for blacks ever to have been transported to the U.S.? Is Ford also implying that after Emancipation blacks should just have left the U.S. en masse for the country created in their name--Liberia? The flag of Liberia has as its motto: "the love of freedom brought us here".
It looks like that because Ford is saying Obama's presdiency bid is doomed because U.S racism is indomitable.
So for Ford, who exactly should realistically be president of the U.S?
Or is it just a bluff on his part: would he say the same if someone like Deval Patrick[governor of Massachusetts] or Harold Ford[Tennessee congressman]were running in place of BHO? Or is it that Ford is more powerless chauvinist that genuine radical?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read "Obama's Multiracial Coalition and the Politics of Racial Reconciliation" and I believe that it confirms my post above. And 90% of the responses support the Ford postion on BHO.
Now here's the thing. If Ford is a genuine radical then the implications of his analysis of Obama mean only this: either U.S. blacks seek their own state or some kind of autonomy[Kurdish style in Iraq]in the U.S. or they migrate back to Africa. Given his view of U.S. racism, it's obvious that U.S. whites will never allow the ceding of any part of the U.S. to blacks. So it's the other alternative.
But is Ford seriously saying this--or is he just bluffing?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you disagree with Mr. Ford, then that is fine. But don't spread lies because at the end, you will loose your face.
Mr. Ford wants from Obama or any candidate to hold accountable on their actions and move over the cliché: Yes We Can!
Is that wrong or is it a true journalistic job?
Now, Obama wants to be a president for whole US, then why does he not mention the prison gulag LINK , where 1:15 African American males are rotten (modern day slavery, indeed!) And you ask why Black Americans don't develop, but how can they, when their young boys are kept in a gulag?? These men were meant to be the future of AAs, not sitting and rotten in a gulag!
Another topic,
Why did Obama vote for a war machine bill, and same time, he campaigns to end the Iraq war. Why is that wrong to ask these questions, when Mr. Ford knows these questions will never be presented on main stream media.
Don't you remember, the last Congress election? The Democrats told the people if they get the majority of the House, then they will end the war and bring the troops home? And instead, they passed a war machine bill, not only for Iraq, but also in Africa (George Bush Visits Africa ) LINK
And let us forget for a moment Middle East and go to Haiti (100% Black population, not far from Miami coast). There is a real hunger there and the only option people have to eat for many is sand cakes and dirts. Why don't we hear in MSM?
These questions are what every politicians should be asked, and Mr. Ford is just doing his job.
And no, Mr. Ford is not colour blind or a racist or hates and envies Black American politicians, and there is a reason why you don't hear their voices; becaused they are banned Link
quote:Originally posted by lamin: What Ford seems to be saying is that no mentally healthy black could ever run for the U.S. presidency and win. Ever, ever, given the heated reaction to Jeremiah Wright's pronouncements.
Is Ford also implying that it was a grave historical error for blacks ever to have been transported to the U.S.? Is Ford also implying that after Emancipation blacks should just have left the U.S. en masse for the country created in their name--Liberia? The flag of Liberia has as its motto: "the love of freedom brought us here".
It looks like that because Ford is saying Obama's presdiency bid is doomed because U.S racism is indomitable.
So for Ford, who exactly should realistically be president of the U.S?
Or is it just a bluff on his part: would he say the same if someone like Deval Patrick[governor of Massachusetts] or Harold Ford[Tennessee congressman]were running in place of BHO? Or is it that Ford is more powerless chauvinist that genuine radical?
If you disagree with Mr. Ford, then that is fine. But don't spread lies because at the end, you will loose your face.
Mr. Ford wants from Obama or any candidate to hold accountable on their actions and move over the cliché: Yes We Can!
Is that wrong or is it a true journalistic job?
quote:Now, Obama wants to be a president for whole US, then why does he not mention the prison gulag LINK , where 1:15 African American males are rotten (modern day slavery, indeed!) And you ask why Black Americans don't develop, but how can they, when their young boys are kept in a gulag?? These men were meant to be the future of AAs, not sitting and rotten in a gulag!
Pay attention. He's practically the only candidate who's addressed the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans and challenged white Americans to take responsibility for their own system, including blacks. His main theme was that for them to invest in any group of Americans will eventually benefit all Americans. This has been addressed by him in numerous debates as well as his "more perfect union" address, just recently. This is an argument from ignorance.
quote:Another topic,
Why did Obama vote for a war machine bill, and same time, he campaigns to end the Iraq war. Why is that wrong to ask these questions, when Mr. Ford knows these questions will never be presented on main stream media.
Are you serious? Not even the Clinton campaign makes such charges, and actually it's the other way around. Obama spoke out against the war from the very beginning in 2002 while running for the Illinois senate, and at a time when it was unpopular to do so. Both Mccain and Clinton voted to give Bush authorization. After the war was already authorized, the only thing one can do is focus on keeping troops safe and getting us out in the safest way possible.
He addressed this (voting for funding) at the Texas debate, saying in so many words that it goes with out saying that once we're in a ditch one needs to figure out a plan to pull themselves out, though what's important is who got us in that ditch in the first place (Mccain, Clinton, and Bush!). Your critique is off-base, the Iraq war is universally seen as a strong point with him concerning democrats who are opposed to it.
quote:Don't you remember, the last Congress election? The Democrats told the people if they get the majority of the House, then they will end the war and bring the troops home? And instead, they passed a war machine bill, not only for Iraq, but also in Africa (George Bush Visits Africa ) LINK
Are you that naive? Are you talking about the surge? Elaborate, please. The democrats actually put out a Bill to end the war last year and republicans blocked the proposal. Congress and senate is all about proportional representation, nothing is surefire, but they DID try. Another false critique from you it seems.
Not concerned with the right wing rantings of one individual, just felt it necessary to address these misguided criticisms and spread of false information based on intra-ethnic, crabbish attacks.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
You talking to someone who does not depend or watch FOX news.
Neither do I, actually. It's a very biased media outlet bent on promoting the right. I read, watch CNN/MSNBC, and stay updated through e-mail.
quote:BTW, I did not ask the vote to go to war, but the bill I am talking about is after the war, when he was a senator.
And like I said, he addressed exactly this in the Texas debate with the bus/ditch analogy. There was more than one bill that he signed in support of funding, etc after he was a member of the state Senate, but this is because we were in the middle of a war! Any votes to the contrary at the onset of a war is would support disaster, the main interest was keeping the troop's integrity intact and eventually getting them out. It's more complicated than you make it, especially since everyone voted the same at that point (democrats AND republicans), but you act as if it's a criticism unique to Obama.
quote:So, find the sources when I come back.
No problem.. They are one click away.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that to be president of the U.S. there are certain things you just cannot say--and hope to get nominated by either the Democratic or Republican party.
You can say right-wing even racist things if you are a white candidate and it would hardly get noticed.
On the other hand, if you are a non-white candidate--especially black--you just cannot criticise the system by claiming that the system is racist. You also have to be super-patriotic in speech and symbols to make the whites feel comfortable. Note that Obama has been criticised for not wearing a flag pin that--a fad for public officals aafter 9/11--and not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
There you have it: which ever black wants to president of the U.S. has to practically become a right wing fascist[you just cannot side with the Palestinian cause and hope to get elected. You cannot say anything negative about the U.S. and you have to pledge undying fealty to Israel].
And Ford knows this. Yet I don't think he is as harsh on the white candidates as he is on Obama. I think I read somewhere that he supported Edwards. As if Edwards--a white man--is less slave to the U.S. stem than Obama.
That's why I said that Ford seems to be offering U.S. blacks who seek the presidency a no-win choice: either you campaign openly about the racism in the U.S. and the U.S. as an imperialist power--which are both true--or you are a despicable compromiser.
Maybe Ford has never voted in any U.S. election, because if he did, he must have voted for a "despicable compromiser".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I agree.. They even made a deal out of Obama NOT "disowning" his former pastor. That is nothing more or less than comedy. Denouncing his out of context words aren't enough I suppose.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The point is that to be president of the U.S. there are certain things you just cannot say--and hope to get nominated by either the Democratic or Republican party.
You can say right-wing even racist things if you are a white candidate and it would hardly get noticed.
On the other hand, if you are a non-white candidate--especially black--you just cannot criticise the system by claiming that the system is racist. You also have to be super-patriotic in speech and symbols to make the whites feel comfortable.
^Yes yes yes!
quote:Note that Obama has been criticised for not wearing a flag pin that--a fad for public officals aafter 9/11--and not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
There you have it: which ever black wants to president of the U.S. has to practically become a right wing fascist[you just cannot side with the Palestinian cause and hope to get elected. You cannot say anything negative about the U.S. and you have to pledge undying fealty to Israel].
And Ford knows this. Yet I don't think he is as harsh on the white candidates as he is on Obama. I think I read somewhere that he supported Edwards. As if Edwards--a white man--is less slave to the U.S. stem than Obama.
That's why I said that Ford seems to be offering U.S. blacks who seek the presidency a no-win choice: either you campaign openly about the racism in the U.S. and the U.S. as an imperialist power--which are both true--or you are a despicable compromiser.
Maybe Ford has never voted in any U.S. election, because if he did, he must have voted for a "despicable compromiser".
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic