News and Politics Forum

2.DOH wrote:

*DING*

You are now free to move about the country.

My compliments for faithful reproduction of the BHO talking point on this issue.  I question the accuracy of your "quote" which appears to have been re-arranged and excerpted to more closley resemble Michelle's.

McCain wrote:

I don’t begin this mission with any sense of entitlement. America doesn’t owe me anything. I am the son and grandson of Navy admirals, and I was born into America’s service. It wasn’t until I was deprived of her company that I fell in love with America. And it has been my honor to serve her and her great cause - freedom. I have never lived a day since that I wasn’t thankful for the privilege.

This is a plausible account of a veteran's love of country being intensified by the trials of services and imprisonment.

Equating the process of sitting crippled in solitary confinement with no end in sight, thinking about what really matters and what you genuinely love to the excitement of Michelle Obama is silly.

iDissent wrote:

I assume you'd choose the latter.  If so you should apply the same consideration to Mrs. Obama.

You would assume incorrectly.  I would assume that McCain knows what words mean and uses them to convey what he intends, just as Michelle does.

When Michelle attends a normal church, or none at all, serves her nation at great personal expense and shows leadership and character while she does it, I will assess her similarly.  Until then, a harvard educated attorney who isn't really proud of her country until her husband runs for the presidency is appalling.

By the way, iD?

It's not our opinion of Michelle Obama that should be changing.  It's yours.

You know why?

Because there were TWO speeches.  In her -first- one, there was no "really".   See -both- speeches here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4


Two questions for you:  1.  Were you aware of this?  2.  If not, do you -really- think that the people/blogs/politicians who worked hard as hell to convince you that she was horribly mischaracterized and misquoted -weren't- aware of this?

Just to be totally plain about this, you said this:

As noted on the show, the media quotes her statement on being proud of America, they continually misquote her.  She said "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country", but the media continually reports it as "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country" which totally removes the context of her meaning and totally mis-characterizes what she said.

You will admit, I hope, given the evidence in that video, that absolutely every single word in this paragraph is completely false?  And that if anyone is misrepresenting or taking out of context, it is leftists and folks such as yourself claiming that she was misrepresented?

Here's a challenge for you.  Go back to wherever you read or were told that it was horrible media bias unfairly damning and ripping her words out of context.  Tell them that, oops, we're wrong, she really did say exactly what the media and all the conservatives said she did, and we're being unfair by accusing them of distorting her, and in fact it is -we- that are distorting -them-.  See how well you are received, and how many Obama supporters admit the truth versus how many go carrying right on claiming we ebil conservatives are being horrible Goebbels like manipulators of reality.

And if your ONLY source was the View... may I just say, bwahahahahahahahahaha.  Maybe now you'll have a clue as to who really gets all of the media manipulation on their side.

I'm sorry, but I am forced to smite you for making me watch 8 minutes of that show for no good reason.

"Seeing as how your words have been reinterpreted, do you feel inhibited now?  Are you afraid to speak?  Do you feel you have to watch what you say?"  ROTFL.  It's hilarious how easily you guys completely fall for this incredible media manipulation and actually come out thinking she's a -victim-, and the people who were telling the truth were ebil liars.  Talk about RUBES.

No.  Make that useful idiots.

So, since she sat there and let people lie on her behalf... (there's no f'ing WAY that -she- didn't know about both quotes when she sat there complacently while the women on the View lied about the quote, and made her out as a hapless victim)... has -your- opinion of her changed?

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (06-20-2008 08:57 PM)

Has it occurred to you that maybe Zuk has other things to do on his weekends than respond to threads here?

2 questions and I promise I will stay out of it. I will preface this with my standard disclaimer that I know nothing about politics, so my questions are genuine, not made facetiously.

Zuk-You said "a normal church". What kind of church do they go to? I know there was something about their pastor disgracing himself on national TV, but I kind of ignored it. So I am curious to know what you mean by "normal church".

i-Do you suppose this whole issue would have been different had she used the words, "Tonight, I am SO proud of my country." instead of what she said. I know that everyone is focusing on the "really" thing, but I am taking more issue with the "For the first time" part. Thoughts on how it would have been an entirely different statement with a few minor word changes, and would it have erupted thus?


Okay, I will go back to my corner now.

Dancer wrote:

2 questions and I promise I will stay out of it. I will preface this with my standard disclaimer that I know nothing about politics, so my questions are genuine, not made facetiously.

Zuk-You said "a normal church". What kind of church do they go to? I know there was something about their pastor disgracing himself on national TV, but I kind of ignored it. So I am curious to know what you mean by "normal church".

One that is associated with these beliefs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

What is Black Theology?

Black theology is a form of liberation theology that has its center in the theme of oppression of blacks by whites. It came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society" (Cone). It emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of black consciousness and seems to speak to the issues that blacks must contend with on a daily basis.

[edit] God

Intricate and largely philosophical views of God are largely ignored in preference for the concerns of the oppressed. White Christian concepts taught to the black man thus are to be disregarded or ignored. God's person, the Trinity, his supreme power and authority as well as "subtle indications of God's white maleness" are said not to relate to (and in some cases antagonistic to) the black experience. The dominant perspective on God is God in action, delivering the oppressed because of his righteousness. His immanence is stressed over His transcendence, and as a result He is seen to be in flux or always changing.

It's a very political church, and its leaders have said many inflammatory (some would say foolish) things over the years.

Do you suppose this whole issue would have been different had she used the words, "Tonight, I am SO proud of my country." instead of what she said. I know that everyone is focusing on the "really" thing, but I am taking more issue with the "For the first time" part. Thoughts on how it would have been an entirely different statement with a few minor word changes, and would it have erupted thus?

Yes.  It's the fact that she somehow managed to get a Harvard education, pass the bar, and to secure a job where she pulls down 300k a year, and is only *now* starting to be proud of her country.

Dancer wrote:

White Christian concepts taught to the black man thus are to be disregarded or ignored.

But...*is utterly confused* Jimp isnt like that, and as much as he makes me want to break out the eye of newt and skin of salamander, GLF isnt, either.

It emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of black consciousness and seems to speak to the issues that blacks must contend with on a daily basis.

I attend a HBC. I still maintain that these "black issues" are really "human issues". Find me a society....Never mind, it takes the thread off topic. So wow, I'm just amazed. Thank you for answering me.

Sorry Dancer, I misread your question.  I thought you were asking what was unique about Obama & Wright's church.  You were asking what constitutes "normal".  Sorry...

What's an HBC?

Dancer, the wiki explanation is a bit dry.  In reality, Wright's church does more than just "disregard or ignore" "white" Christianity.  It's actively, vehemently hostile to whites.

Wright's sermons regularly included statements such as "God Damn America!", 9/11 was an example of the "chickens coming home to roost", and that white Americans deliberately created AIDS to destroy the black population.

Wright's own mentor, one of the founders of black liberation theology, said this:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.  What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

You should've read iD's fantastic rationalizations for this garbage.  In his explanation, the above isn't the tiniest bit racist.  It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so repulsive.

Aw, hell, just for you, I found it so you can see it for yourself.  Here's his reaction to that quote from James Cone:

...and when I read that quote above it sounds to me to be of the same ideology of self determinatism, self sufficience, ethnic nepolism....as practiced in numerous successful ethnic groups such as Korean-Americans, Jews, Cubans.  Its just mixed with the whole fire and brimstone motif because they are using the notion of God to "sell" it.  Essentially its circulating your money and resources within your own community as to grow community wealth, which drives down crime, creates opportunities for the community, etc.  But because its being sold in a church you get the "kill gods" crap.  It is all about black empowerment, but not black power in the 1960s Black Panther sense.  It is not racist, but it is race focused if you understand me.  "Destroy" is not in the literal sense of destroying "people".  Its about destroying structures (i.e. systems) which serve to keep a group down relative to the rest of society.

... heh.  No further comment necessary.

Qwinn

iD -

I'm going to ask you a question that is going to be difficult for you to answer.

Before I ask it I want to clarify something for you. I can't speak for anyone else here, but as for me; I think that much of what Obama has said has been twisted and misrepresented by the "right wing' portion of the media in much the same way that the "left wing" portion has treated GWB. If you keep in mind that the RW portion is hugely outnumbered by the LW portion; it may help you to understand the frustration of those of us who are "this" side of the fence.

I also want to say that I don't hold Barack responsible for the stupidity of the people he is surrounded by. Instead, I look at the things HE has said, and done.


Regardless, I do not want Barack to be President; because I don't think HE would be very good at the job.



Now, having said all that, I want to ask you a very simple question:

Do you see a fundamental qualitative difference between what Michele said and what John said; or do you see them as essentially equivalent?

Perhaps everyone in this forum is a lot more deliberate in their speech than I can say I am, but don't you give any credence to the idea that what Michelle said was just a throwaway remark intended to get a response out of the crowd.  At what point in this country did we all become tattle-tailers just waiting to pounce on the first case of verbal diarrhea?  It's exactly that mentality which leads to the current state of political discourse, where nobody actually responds to posed questions, instead redirecting the conversation to their list of talking points.  Nobody can speak off the cuff for fear of saying something stupid.  If I had to claim ownership of every belief I espoused, I'd legitimately be called a moron and a hypocrite.  Well, you may find me so anyway, but you get my point.

Having said all of that, I'm more against Michelle because she seems like a real p-whip.  Obama said for Father's day that Michelle was "letting" him play basketball or golf.  I don't know if I want a subservient little nancyboy running the country.

One last thing... why the hell would you have "pride" in your country?  Have pride in your own actions, or events which you had some hand in.  I think it's amazing that we landed on the moon, but I didn't have anything to do with it, so I don't see any basis for personal pride in the event.

Qwinn wrote:

#3)  You don't grasp the concept of being proud of someone else for -their- actions?  The concept of pride is only personal, and can only be directed inwards?  That's kinda scary.

Qwinn

Isn't pride directed towards others "admiration"?

Qwinn wrote:

If your brother won the Nobel Prize, would you say you admired him or you were proud of him?  I'd say the latter, personally.

Well, if it were a science prize, anyway.  If it was the Peace prize, I'd wonder what tyrant's ass he had to kiss for the honor.

Qwinn

That's pride by association though, because he's my brother. My father was on the 1980 Canadian Olympic team (really) and I'm very proud of that, but I don't think "pride" would be applicable if he were some guy I didn't know. I'd admire him, but be proud? I dunno.

dgm wrote:

Are we really trying to parse a nuanced usage of the word "proud"?

REALLY?!?

Would you be proud of us if we were?