Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama: "To know me is to love me."

Obama: "To know me is to love me."
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2008, 06:03 PM
 
What a creepily arrogant guy:
---------------------
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IwNDI3Y2MzZTE=

Last July, Obama explained to reporters that he would eventually overtake Hillary Rodham Clinton in the polls because "to know me is to love me." Some months later, according to The Associated Press' Ron Fournier, he proclaimed, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

Oprah merely calls him, "The One," saying he will help us "evolve to a higher plane."
---------------------

Where do these people come from? How can you be that self-absorbed?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2008, 09:02 PM
 
You're in denial. You love him. Go ahead and admit it. You seem to be so obsessed by him.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2008, 11:59 PM
 
I would rather have sex with Barack Obama than john McCain. End of story.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would rather have sex with Barack Obama than john McCain. End of story.
+1

Once you go black...
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 01:29 AM
 
Has he started to talk in the third-person yet?

Barack Obama thinks this is a fine discussion since it's all about Barack Obama.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 09:28 AM
 
No, not taking himself too seriously at all...

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...aws_team_.html
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 09:32 AM
 
Last July, Obama explained to reporters that he would eventually overtake Hillary Rodham Clinton in the polls because "to know me is to love me." Some months later, according to The Associated Press' Ron Fournier, he proclaimed, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."
Standard leftie crap.

File under "If you don't agree with me 100% then you are obviously under-educated".
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 12:02 PM
 
I'm really looking forward to evolving to this Oprah-esque "higher plane" when Obama becomes president. I'm guessing that this will involve me making billions of dollars by sitting around on my own TV show watching my derrière slowly expand. I can't wait!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No, not taking himself too seriously at all...







http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...aws_team_.html
Liberals have no sense of humor
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 07:50 PM
 
Liberals are very thin skinned. But that is because they have evolved to a higher plane and are ultra-aware of their surroundings. You and I, Chongo, exist in a sub-Oprah sphere of existence and cannot comprehend what it is like to be them.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 08:03 PM
 
Well, such simplistic, child-like generalizations like you are making sure add fuel to your fire, Kerrigan, although I do think that there exist some smart Republicans.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
Standard leftie crap.

File under "If you don't agree with Uncle Doof 100% then you are obviously under-educated".
Fixed.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, such simplistic, child-like generalizations like you are making sure add fuel to your fire, Kerrigan, although I do think that there exist some smart Republicans.
I'd be careful with the personal insults, Bessie. Anyways, it's back to ignore for you, I've read enough of your rubbish.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Fixed.
Rooster, you really want to be trotting off down to Hollywood and getting yourself a writing job. I mean, that was absolutely superb. You'll go down a storm writing for sitcoms and the like.
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2008, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I'd be careful with the personal insults, Bessie. Anyways, it's back to ignore for you, I've read enough of your rubbish.
So, insults to groups of people are cool, but calling these insults dumb crosses some sort of line? Your dumb generalizations are rubbish, the antithesis of intellectual thought, and moreover a waste of everybody's time. You can come up with something with a little more depth than that, which is why I responded in the first place - not to simply offer a personal retaliation.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 08:23 AM
 
Why is this OK?
From Rolling Stone 06/26/08
Is that Obama, Hillary and W?

but this is not?
( Last edited by Chongo; Jul 18, 2008 at 08:50 AM. )
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 08:42 AM
 
Your link is jacked.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 08:51 AM
 
fixed
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 09:14 AM
 
Thank you. I wanted a little context.

I'll read it when my blood pressure can handle the strain. I got to the byline and remembered, "hey, I've seen this guy before... and he's a douche."

Off the cuff I'd say the RS image is more tasteless than the NY one, however they both still fall under the heading of obvious satire to me.

What torqued me off about Obama's initial reaction isn't so much that he doesn't like it, opinions vary and all that, it sort of takes a shot at his wife, etc., etc. What gets me was the "I'm sure the New Yorker will claim it's satire" gambit.

The New Yorker claims it's satire because it is satire.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Off the cuff I'd say the RS image is more tasteless than the NY one, however they both still fall under the heading of obvious satire to me.
The McCain cartoon may be more tasteless, but the Obama cartoon actually portrays him negatively, unlike the McCain one.

What torqued me off about Obama's initial reaction isn't so much that he doesn't like it, opinions vary and all that, it sort of takes a shot at his wife, etc., etc. What gets me was the "I'm sure the New Yorker will claim it's satire" gambit.

The New Yorker claims it's satire because it is satire.
Eh, it's hard to blame the Obama campaign people for any reaction they'd have to a cartoon like that.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 10:35 AM
 
Plus, of course, the Obama camp is going to react to cartoons like a bunch of muslims react to cartoons, aren't they?

If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
Plus, of course, the Obama camp is going to react to cartoons like a bunch of muslims react to cartoons, aren't they?

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I'm really looking forward to evolving to this Oprah-esque "higher plane" when Obama becomes president. I'm guessing that this will involve me making billions of dollars by sitting around on my own TV show watching my derrière slowly expand. I can't wait!
Nah. Guaranteed, it more likely involves you forking over whatever amount you make into some new crop of ever-expanding, ponzi scheme boondoggles, while Oprah et al sit around on their ever-expanding derrières complaining that you're the greedy one not paying your fair share.

I can' t believe you actually dared assign yourself a royalty position in the enlightenment scenario! How self-centered can you be?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The McCain cartoon may be more tasteless, but the Obama cartoon actually portrays him negatively, unlike the McCain one.

The McCain cartoon is portraying Obama as a Vietnamese.

Edit: Oops, I wrote Muslim instead of Vietnamese.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 11:49 AM
 
Did Obama actually say this?
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
What exactly does that mean? The Daily Kos has their collective panties in a bunch because some on the right are saying he is calling to form a national police.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20.../838/66/553176
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The McCain cartoon is portraying Obama as a Vietnamese.

Edit: Oops, I wrote Muslim instead of Vietnamese.
Yes, but I don't follow you. I'm just saying that the McCain cartoon doesn't portray McCain negatively. In fact it portrays one of his best political strengths - his time as a POW.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Eh, it's hard to blame the Obama campaign people for any reaction they'd have to a cartoon like that.

Why?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, such simplistic, child-like generalizations like you are making sure add fuel to your fire, Kerrigan, although I do think that there exist some smart Republicans.
Oh look, besson is making concessions! He's so reasonable! How could you NOT agree with his stance??
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why?
Oh come on.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Yes, but I don't follow you. I'm just saying that the McCain cartoon doesn't portray McCain negatively. In fact it portrays one of his best political strengths - his time as a POW.

If his best political strength is something irrelevant to the job, that's damning him and his supporters with some faint praise.

That's not the point though. Why is it okay for Obama to be a shrieking Vietnamese in that cartoon?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Oh come on.

Well, I took a pretty specific and small exception to it (i.e. they shouldn't imply the cartoon is something it's not, which should never be okay), and you come back with any response is okay?

Rather than come up with scenarios that despite their ridiculousness would prove you wrong, I thought maybe you'd do me the service of clarifying your position.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If his best political strength is something irrelevant to the job, that's damning him and his supporters with some faint praise.

That's not the point though. Why is it okay for Obama to be a shrieking Vietnamese in that cartoon?
I think many would consider patriotism to be important to the job of president, and many would consider getting captured and tortured for your country a pretty good show of that.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's not the point though. Why is it okay for Obama to be a shrieking Vietnamese in that cartoon?
Because no one genuinely believes Obama is Vietnamese, and that isn't one of the smear tactics being used against him.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, I took a pretty specific and small exception to it (i.e. they shouldn't imply the cartoon is something it's not, which should never be okay), and you come back with any response is okay?

Rather than come up with scenarios that despite their ridiculousness would prove you wrong, I thought maybe you'd do me the service of clarifying your position.
I guess I just didn't understand your point. Yeah, OK, not any response is acceptable. But it's understandable if they react pretty damn negatively to that cover, and I don't really think it's fair to complain about how they did react to it. I think they were saying that, even if the intent was satire, it won't come across as satire to everyone. And I'm sure that's true.

Here's what they said: ""The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said."

Is that really such an over-the-top response? Especially when Obama himself just laughed it off and said it's a cartoon that most Americans wouldn't care about? And you think the combination of the two things - the cartoon, and then their response - really on balance merits criticism of the Obama campaign? I'm sorry, but I think that's just crazy.

I can't even think of a comparable cartoon that they could do about McCain, because there just aren't the same type of smear tactics being used against him as there are about Obama... OK here's one: During the 2000 campaign, there were false rumors being spread that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Imagine a major national magazine cover depicting McCain hiding from his wife and screwing a black woman while holding her black baby. That would be about on the level of this magazine cover. It would be satire, of course.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think many would consider patriotism to be important to the job of president, and many would consider getting captured and tortured for your country a pretty good show of that.

I think we can safely say that's not a sentiment held by the creators of the cartoon.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2008, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Here's what they said: ""The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said."

Is that really such an over-the-top response?

I'm not taking issue with over-the-topedness.

As I said, I'm taking issue with the implication that it wasn't satire.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2008, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Liberals are very thin skinned. But that is because they have evolved to a higher plane and are ultra-aware of their surroundings. You and I, Chongo, exist in a sub-Oprah sphere of existence and cannot comprehend what it is like to be them.
Poor bastards.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2008, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Why is this OK?
From Rolling Stone 06/26/08
Is that Obama, Hillary and W?

but this is not?
Holy @$%*!!!

I think that's MUCH worse!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 04:20 PM
 
If they flipped over the New Yorker cover, they'll love this.

here's a sample
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4392846.ece
From The Times
July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2008, 07:18 PM
 
White people lampooning a black person is taboo in the present state of race relations. That is the reason that Obama is not the subject of satire in the mainstream media, Baker's article notwithstanding.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: House of music.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2008, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
White people lampooning a black person is taboo in the present state of race relations. That is the reason that Obama is not the subject of satire in the mainstream media, Baker's article notwithstanding.
Obama is half white completely raised by white people in Kansas for the most part.

In fact one of his commercials in which he talks about his roots shows all kinds of white peeps and not one single black in the whole thing.

I'd say he's white with a nice tan.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 04:00 PM
 
So like his grandmother, he's a "typical white person" and not a typical black person?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 02:26 PM
 
something my brother put together, PUMA supporter

Hip Hop Barack
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 06:50 PM
 
What's mildly interesting here is that these black note-worthies almost seem to be helping ruin Obama's chances of getting elected. Why would a black Obama-supporting artist say such destructive things about Obama's competition, talking about painting the white house black? Why would a reverend with ties to Obama go out of his way to be controversial? Why would Jessie Jackson pull the rug out from under Obama under his breath supposedly "off-mic"? I mean it's almost to the point where this is an active attempt to sabotage his campaign? Are they all truly this narcissistic that they can't see they're damaging his campaign? It's like they just can't help themselves.

All a white racist would need to do is just shut up and let all the black racists speak for them.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 08:41 PM
 
If Obama wins, they're out of a job, especially Sharpton and Jackson
"Memento, homo ... quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris" (cf. Gn 3:19). "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 10:17 PM
 
ebuddy: let's be clear here... While there are definitely black racists as Obama has said so himself in his speech about race, white and other forms of racism exist too... The truth is, racism affects us all, no matter what our race is. We can play the game, and many do, of trying to quantify who is more racist, who is less racist, but this game of keeping score is virtually impossible, and at the end pointless anyway.

I sense a fair amount of frustration coming from you directed in particular towards blacks (mostly in another thread, although I can't remember which one this is). I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't acknowledge legitimate white on black racism, but I think it is important to not target a particular group and get into finger pointing and score keeping.

On the other hand, it is fair to express that you feel that whites carry the brunt of the reverse racism that goes on (or whatever you want to call it), I'm not trying to suggest that we are so carefully guarded with how we talk about this stuff that we simply don't. In fact, I feel that race is an issue that many of us have swept under the carpet for many years. My point is simply that I feel it is best to recognize the complexity of the issue, the fact that it affects us all, and to keep simplistic, pointed emotionally charged remarks under control.

Again, no insinuations directed at you ebuddy, I just hope that we can all agree on this, as many of us have the ability to shape these sorts of racial tensions and how they play out in our own lives, and with how we speak about these things. Words have great power, but at the same time we shouldn't be so afraid to use them that things go unsaid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What's mildly interesting here is that these black note-worthies almost seem to be helping ruin Obama's chances of getting elected. Why would a black Obama-supporting artist say such destructive things about Obama's competition, talking about painting the white house black? Why would a reverend with ties to Obama go out of his way to be controversial? Why would Jessie Jackson pull the rug out from under Obama under his breath supposedly "off-mic"? I mean it's almost to the point where this is an active attempt to sabotage his campaign? Are they all truly this narcissistic that they can't see they're damaging his campaign? It's like they just can't help themselves.

All a white racist would need to do is just shut up and let all the black racists speak for them.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If Obama wins, they're out of a job, especially Sharpton and Jackson
Absolutely correct!

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go out of their way to look for racism where this is none. The sad thing is there is plenty of racism to take issue with in this country but they seem more about getting their name in the spotlight than genuinely trying to deal with larger concerns about racial inequity. With a black president in the White House their public voice would be greatly diminished as President's Obama's voice (or any other black President) would outweigh their voices.

And while I am not naive enough to think electing a black president would eliminate all forms of racism in this country it would go a long way towards showing all Americans, of all racial backgrounds, that a person's race is not nearly as important as their other personal qualities.

Obama has already made several pointed remarks about the need for more personal and social responsibility within the black community. I applaud that, I think he should direct that charge to every segment of the American population. We all should be charged with taking more responsibility for our lives and our well-being. But, I think at the same time his calls for responsibility threaten those within the black community who can't see outside of the frame of racial reference, who see everything in terms of racial abuse or oppression. And I imagine that possibility (of having muted their calls for outrage over real or supposed racial injustice) is threatening. Al Sharpton* and Jesse Jackson would lose their national platforms to discuss issues of racial inequality with a black president and I don't think they want to lose that position within the limelight.



*Although, to his credit, Al Sharpton did not make as big a deal out of the Ricky Bell shooting as he might otherwise have done. (Ricky Bell was a young black guy in Queens, NY gunned down by copy the night before his wedding.) Luckily, two of three officers who shot Ricky Bell were black so Sharpton's rhetoric was focused more on "bad cops" than racism. But, of course, he was still out there in the limelight "speaking for the family" and getting his name in the papers.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2008, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy: let's be clear here... While there are definitely black racists as Obama has said so himself in his speech about race, white and other forms of racism exist too... The truth is, racism affects us all, no matter what our race is. We can play the game, and many do, of trying to quantify who is more racist, who is less racist, but this game of keeping score is virtually impossible, and at the end pointless anyway.
I suspect a great deal of your response to my post is founded from your second paragraph and I'll address that. I appreciate your forthrightness.

My post was really not intended to measure who is more or less racist. My post was genuinely curious as to why so many who you'd think truly support Obama and a black man in the White house would go so far out of their way to be controversial. My point is, with support like this who needs white racism? Not to give the impression that there aren't legitimate reasons to oppose Obama's candidacy, all these note-worthies are doing is giving the illegitimate reasons more weight. They're either too stupid to know they're doing it, Too narcissistic to resist doing it, or actively trying to destroy his campaign. I want to know which it is. That's the crux of my point.

I sense a fair amount of frustration coming from you directed in particular towards blacks (mostly in another thread, although I can't remember which one this is). I'm not trying to insinuate that you don't acknowledge legitimate white on black racism, but I think it is important to not target a particular group and get into finger pointing and score keeping.
That's not what I've done at all. Too often, instead of addressing the points in a person's comments, we first assign some "reason" for them saying the things they say, then we address those "reasons". What you're left with is an irrelevant response. I'm not trying to be rude, there's just no more a diplomatic way of saying it.

To your point; I suspect you're latching on to the comment from the other thread about "... proof that racism is ancient history..." and I stand behind that point. The only step left to take at this point is to disregard race entirely. The reason I say this is that if we're going to claim (as OAW did in that thread) that racism was behind the Paris Hilton ad and other campaign issues regardless of how careful and cautious McCain's campaign has been to avoid being tagged with that mark, it is either a willing abuse of the term "racism" because this minority individual hasn't experienced true institutionalized racism or the term itself is truly that subtle and watered down today. Someone may dislike you for any number of reasons, but if you want to see racism, you'll always see racism. When you cry "racism" where it doesn't exist, you're damaging the definition of "racism" to mean "criticizing a black man". This is just wrong on a host of levels and almost mocks the plight of the black man in getting to the point where they'd have a serious candidate for President.

On the other hand, it is fair to express that you feel that whites carry the brunt of the reverse racism that goes on (or whatever you want to call it), I'm not trying to suggest that we are so carefully guarded with how we talk about this stuff that we simply don't. In fact, I feel that race is an issue that many of us have swept under the carpet for many years.
Race has been swept under the carpet for precisely the reason you've illustrated. Instead of addressing the points of the commentary, they will first assign a "tag" to your attitude. They then address the "tag" they've assigned to you instead of weighing your argument on its merits. I have been exposed to reverse racism both subtle and blatant, but this is the result of human nature. I understand this. I don't have a chip on my shoulder other than the need to express myself. We have to be extremely carefully guarded with how we talk about this stuff because if someone wants to call your commentary racist, they will. The tag will carry much more weight than the merits of your commentary and this is unfortunate. We need to elevate the level of discourse here, not beat it down with tags. I am tired of this to be sure.

My point is simply that I feel it is best to recognize the complexity of the issue, the fact that it affects us all, and to keep simplistic, pointed emotionally charged remarks under control.
If I call ludicris' statements racist, it's because by any measure we have today regarding the term, he's guilty. If I call Rev. Wright a racist, it's because by any measure we have of the term, he's guilty. This is not a failure to recognize the complexity of an issue. It is the first step to understanding that these traits are neither exclusively black nor white and that we are all guilty of human nature. I've long thought that we need to focus more on our similarities than differences. This is where peace is IMO. You can point to any historical travesty you want from slavery to the Native Americans and there exists no sect or culture of people not guilty of the same to a greater or lesser degree. The big, more complex picture no one wants to talk about is human nature, not this race or that race.

Again, no insinuations directed at you ebuddy, I just hope that we can all agree on this, as many of us have the ability to shape these sorts of racial tensions and how they play out in our own lives, and with how we speak about these things. Words have great power, but at the same time we shouldn't be so afraid to use them that things go unsaid.
The first step to this is acknowledging human nature and being honest with ourselves and with one another. We have to put the tags and labels away unless they truly apply. We cannot call one thing "bad" and let the "bad" thing in our own house go unchecked. Then, we should focus on similarities instead of differences. As they say on the Red-Green show, we're all in this together.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
Just in case anyone here felt that the Paris Hilton ad was nasty and untrue:

"I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."
-Obama

http://newsbusters.org/stories/mccai...not-sen-mccain
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Absolutely correct!

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go out of their way to look for racism where this is none. The sad thing is there is plenty of racism to take issue with in this country but they seem more about getting their name in the spotlight than genuinely trying to deal with larger concerns about racial inequity. With a black president in the White House their public voice would be greatly diminished as President's Obama's voice (or any other black President) would outweigh their voices.

And while I am not naive enough to think electing a black president would eliminate all forms of racism in this country it would go a long way towards showing all Americans, of all racial backgrounds, that a person's race is not nearly as important as their other personal qualities.

Obama has already made several pointed remarks about the need for more personal and social responsibility within the black community. I applaud that, I think he should direct that charge to every segment of the American population. We all should be charged with taking more responsibility for our lives and our well-being. But, I think at the same time his calls for responsibility threaten those within the black community who can't see outside of the frame of racial reference, who see everything in terms of racial abuse or oppression. And I imagine that possibility (of having muted their calls for outrage over real or supposed racial injustice) is threatening. Al Sharpton* and Jesse Jackson would lose their national platforms to discuss issues of racial inequality with a black president and I don't think they want to lose that position within the limelight.



*Although, to his credit, Al Sharpton did not make as big a deal out of the Ricky Bell shooting as he might otherwise have done. (Ricky Bell was a young black guy in Queens, NY gunned down by copy the night before his wedding.) Luckily, two of three officers who shot Ricky Bell were black so Sharpton's rhetoric was focused more on "bad cops" than racism. But, of course, he was still out there in the limelight "speaking for the family" and getting his name in the papers.
Here are two articles I have found that seem to be making a similar point, namely that identification as a black person is not/no longer associated automatically with an identification as oppressed/a victim, and such social identifications (or more likely, assumptions about social identifications) could be dismantled with an Obama presidency.

Could Obama's rise signal the end of black victimology? | csmonitor.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/ma...olitics-t.html
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2013 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.7 © 2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2