News and Politics Forum

axe wrote:

That's pride by association though, because he's my brother.

Me being a US citizen and all, I'm guessing pride by association makes sense to you?

And was your dad a member of the Canadian summer or winter olympic team? Since you stated you were proud, I'm guessing winter?

Last edited by AC (06-24-2008 07:15 PM)

Qwinn wrote:

#1)  She said it twice in one day, once with the "really", and another not.  I suspect it would've gotten used a lot more if she hadn't been called on it.  That makes it a talking point, and an abhorrent one, not just verbal diarrhea.  You can't say something like that in two speeches in different parts of the country and call that "off the cuff".

I didn't know that.  Pardon my ignorance and release the hounds.

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

Qwinn

I grasp the concept, I just think it's embarrassing and childish.  It's in the same vein as sports fans who use the word "we" ("we lost today", "we have a good team this year") and show up to games with a jersey on like they're going to get to play.  It's fine if you're a kid... it's a little sad and ridiculous for an adult.

Full Metal Jackass wrote:

The truth is that it's not really offensive to anyone: those that already like her are making excuses for the stupid thing she said, and those predisposed to dislike her, or her husband, or democrats or liberals in general, are blowing it out of proportion and feigning offense.

I don't believe people "taking or feigning offense' is at issue.

..at all.

What's called into question is motive behind a comment.

Her words aren't offensive, they're illustrative.

dubfan wrote:

One that is associated with these beliefs:

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

An empowerment theology resultant of being disenfranchised and un-empowered.....oh noes!  Oh my stars and garters!

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

Obama joined this church because it was THE church to join in order to be the community organizer he intended to be in that part of the city.  Its akin to having to join an extremely conservative southern Baptist church in Alabama in order to get "connected" if you were getting into politics down there.

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.

She said "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country".

Lets dissect this.

"Really proud": Meaning "extremely" or "in excess" or "more than normal".
"For the first time in my adult lifetime":  Meaning she been "really" proud various time pre adult lifetime.
Taken together it seems Mrs. O has always felt pride in the country, but this experience has given her an extraordinary sense of it as it would anyone in her position.

You who are offended by this have no sense of language and/or simply want to create controversy where none exists or you are simply easily led by talk radio.

MC Escher wrote:

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?

I think both statements are benign personally.  But I also think the thrulls are unfairly spinning Mrs. O's statement to give it a meaning it did not have.  I posted McCain's statement because it looks on the face of it to be in the vein of where people are attempting to land Michelle's statement.  If treating his statement as Zuk is treating Michelle's, McCain should suffer the same condemnation he has given Michelle.  Yet he does not and has not explained why.  This is an example of twisting the words of those you are in opposition to and not applying the same standard to those with whom you agree.

Qwinn wrote:

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

You're just -completely- full of shit now.

WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO!  It's only 35 seconds long, for God's sake!

How the fuck you can repeat your bullshit claim and keep pretending to be a victim after you KNOW you've been proved to be full of it is beyond me.

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


Qwinn

Is this supposed to be a smoking gun?

These people give the same prepared speeches several times per day in numerous locations as they travel.  And guess what.....there are deviations in each one because people are not perfect.  They forget parts, they forget words, forget to make certain points, they suffer fatigue.  She looks very tired to me.

We see from the side by side ONE word got dropped ONE time.  But it seems that word was supposed to be there, given the other iteration of the SAME speech.  The context she implies remains the same.

You choose to have it mean something different because you don't like her politics.

Dancer wrote:

Um. Wow.

Thats all I've got. I'm just stuck on "...wow". No wonder people behave the way they behave, if thats what they are being fed on the most primal of levels, spirituality. Just, wow... I miss the United Colors of Benneton ideas.

You need to get your information from a source other than quinn.  What he posted was like Christianity's Old Testament.  New interpretations of BLT are not as radical and are more in line with self and community empowerment and not in destroying the white enemy.  The original version stems from 60s radicalism.  I think we will all agree today's take on 60s ideas are far different from how the were taken in the 60s.  Word of advice, don't ask our resident borderline racist for info concerning minorities.

New interpretations of BLT are not as radical and are more in line with self and community empowerment and not in destroying the white enemy.  The original version stems from 60s radicalism.  I think we will all agree today's take on 60s ideas are far different from how the were taken in the 60s.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html

WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?

HANNITY: Reverend, I'm going to give you a chance to answer my question.

WRIGHT: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?

HANNITY: Reverend, Reverend?

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: How many books of Cone's have you head?

This is video of Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, INSISTING that without having read James Cone, you cannot understand black liberation theology.

James Cone wrote the passages I quoted earlier.

Qwinn

Qwinn wrote:

New interpretations of BLT are not as radical and are more in line with self and community empowerment and not in destroying the white enemy.  The original version stems from 60s radicalism.  I think we will all agree today's take on 60s ideas are far different from how the were taken in the 60s.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html

WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?

HANNITY: Reverend, I'm going to give you a chance to answer my question.

WRIGHT: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?

HANNITY: Reverend, Reverend?

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: How many books of Cone's have you head?

This is video of Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, INSISTING that without having read James Cone, you cannot understand black liberation theology.

James Cone wrote the passages I quoted earlier.

Qwinn

You fail to realize that one man's view does not represent the "movement's" view or the view of those pursuing it.  The root inspiration may be the same but differs in practice.

In short:  no one wants to, is planning to, or will kill "whitey".

I know that defies your xenophobic wetdream, but thats the truth.

In practice, "destroying" the "white enemy" goes no further than removing white power over one's ability to self determine and self promote.  This is done through education, business, and economics for example and not through violence.  Its attacking the status quo.

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"

Please explain to me how you define the word "misquote".

And there's lots of other instances of her claiming, in front of crowd after crowd, that she's never -really- been proud of her country?  And you think this is a -good- thing? 

I suggest you do the side by side comparo with every time she gave this speech and you'll see "really" was used far more times than it was absent.

I'm certainly not going to go looking for them.  I've provided video of the two times she said it that day.  The FIRST time she said it, on video, she left out the word "really".  Show me video where she used the word "really" -before- she made her original statement, -before- the uproar that first speech caused, and your argument -might- rise from the abominably pathetic to the merely ridiculous.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (06-25-2008 02:22 PM)

Please, just keep talking.  A thousand well formulated arguments about how the Left is wrong could not possibly discredit your cause more than you are doing right now.

Lots of instances, yet you will not provide them?  That's really convenient.

  So you make the claim that there were a lot of instances, and -I'm- obligated to provide them?  And -I'm- the one being "convenient"?

You, sir, are beyond parody.

Oh, and yes, in case you -do- try to do your own f'ing legwork (typical socialist), instances of her saying "really" -only- count if they were made -before- the date in question, -before- it blew up into a storm that she needed to provide cover for.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (06-25-2008 02:42 PM)

Socialist?

You're an idiot.

You made the claim.  Its not unreasonable to ask for proof.


Waiting...

iD, it seems to me that your main motivation in this thread is to get Qwinn even more wound up than usual. Now, you know I support you there, but the way you're playing fast and loose with the events in question is actually putting Qwinn in a sympathetic light.

You don't really want to see that happen, do you?

Last edited by AC (06-25-2008 03:25 PM)