USA Elections Whole New Ballgame

[belgareth]

Sounds like a recipe for

collapse but I've been saying that for quite some time. Sooner or later our economy will not be able to support the

government. Then what happens?

[koolking1]

The US Government just gave

30 Billion dollars of your money to allow Bear-Stearns to be bought. They should have let BSC go bankrupt but

didn't as it would have meant that all the bonuses paid out to BSC employees last January would have to have been

paid back. They would rather destroy the dollar than let Wall Street suffer. Who pays: see the above

post.


For me, Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and

you do not try to export your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in

the world so that you never have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of

both.

Neo-Conservatisim means if you have the strongest military in the world, why not use it? It means if

you have a desirable ideology export it no matter the cost.

[belgareth]

For me,

Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and you do not try to export

your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in the world so that you never

have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of both.

That is a great

definition. I could live with that. It's a shame that nobody in power seems to understand the need for it.

[koolking1]

we'll have to start our own

country!!!

[belgareth]

Seeing the US fragment

wouldn't surprise me. Say, into maybe 4-5 individual countries? Be bloody but it would probably be better for the

entire world in the long run.

[koolking1]

about

what's happening. I suspect we'll be seeing interest rates in the mid to high teens soon enough and then taxes

enough to choke us all to near death.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=901

[belgareth]

Taxes are already choking us to

death, that's not news.

Interest rates in the teens will completely kill the housing market and put many

thousands out of work along with depressing wages across the board. With energy prices continuing to skyrocket food

and heat will become less affordable causing a lot more people to go hungry. Government programs to help them will

only depress the economy more making matters worse.

If the government doesn't figure it out soon violence will

follow. It is a worst case scenerio but so far the government has cheerfully followed that course.

[koolking1]

I remember in the late

80s/early 90s when every 3rd house in Tampa was up for sale. Crime went through the roof. We had over 100

carjackings a day and the cops were handcuffed ("no chase" rule) and so underfunded that they couldn't stop you for

a broken light cause their cars were in worse shape. We had a socialist mayor who loved Hillary. The carjackings

ended when ALL the insurance companies threatened to pull completely out of Tampa.

I'm not so sure we'll

break up like the Soviet Union though. Maybe. I could imagine Vermont, NH, and Maine going it alone but we'd have

to seal off the NY and Mass borders to keep those way way overtaxed folks out.

[belgareth]

The west coast could easily

break away as could the south. Both areas could easily become self supporting as could the great plains states. I'm

not sure if Alaska could be self supporting but they do have a lot of oil and a strong fishing industry.

What do

you forecast if the trends continue? I'm not sure the US will break up but it is a distinct possibility.

[DrSmellThis]

nm........

[DrSmellThis]

For

me, Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and you do not try to

export your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in the world so that

you never have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of both.

Nothing here to

disagree with. Funny thing is, I always considered myself conservative in my younger days. As I said, I was a big WF

Buckley fan. There are still a lot of things about old-fashioned conservatism I agree with. Even Pat Buchanan says a

lot of things I like.

But now I'm supposed to be a left wing communist, I guess, because I believe in the

constitution, peaceful international relations, protecting the environment, and civil rights. I also think the

current administration was an unmitigated disaster, don't want a theocracy, am not fond of abstinence only AIDS

prevention; believe the government needs a warrant to tap my phone, and can't stand corporatism. I believe every

citizen must have their vote counted. I don't want corporations to be able write the bills that regulate

themselves, just because they bought all the gay hookers that the congress needs. Therefore I'm a godless

communist.

I agree with Jim's post. I don't think "liberalism" exists any more than "conservatism", at least

not in mainstream politics.

KK's posts also had some good, illustrative insights. You look at the so-called tax

and spend crowd. What are they supporting with their taxation? The war. They are increasingly taxing the poor, who

already bear so many of the real burdens of society. Some "liberals." They aren't liberals, they're politicians.



But what has happened with the obscenely, comically skyrocketing deficit in the past seven years? Ask all those

"staunch conservatives" who have been running things. If I want to pay as you go, I'm a commie liberal, right?



For me, it's not so much how much you tax -- obviously, you want to be judicious, frugal and efficient -- but

what you do with your X revenue dollars in terms of values and priorities.

I don't think it's establishing

strongholds of democracy (like Iraq!) everywhere, which is the stated neocon way. Gerald Ford said the same thing

right before he died, and no one in the past called him a left wing commie liberal.

I also don't think it's

hiring countless poor FBI schleps to pour through millions of American citizens' emails and cell phone calls. There

is not enough time in the milennium to do all that, much less available money. Is that being "conservative" with

our resources? To me it's conservative to NOT do that.

Is it "liberal" to not want to spend tax dollars

supporting lobbyists, or on corporate welfare?

Is it liberal to stop spending 3 out of every 4 dollars on fear?

(Bureaucracy can often be a kind of fear, literally, as you are accounting for and verifying your accounting and

verifications. It's not just war and monitoring your citizens)

The whole "tax and spend liberal" thing seems so

outdated, like something from the Johnson administration, or the "Great Society".

You don't want to tax and

spend just to support the excesses and stupidity of government, such as KK's example of Wall Street. This is just

common sense.

You have to get the act together together with the structure and process of government as your

fundamental priority, rather than focus primarily on "adding the icing to the cake" with expenditures. Who wants to

throw good money after bad? That can't happen magically, or overnight. So you have to do it piecemeal, as you go.

To me this is common sense, not liberal or conservative.

I voted for Reagan in part because I believed you want

a strong National defense, you know, as a deterrent. That doesn't mean I want to, in McCain's lyrics,

"Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb Iran". Spending trillions on wars is killing us. Unless this changes, we are going to

come crashing down surely as the alcoholic or gambling addict will come crashing down. It's just a matter of

time.

That makes me a liberal. Then again, black is white and up is down.

[Mtnjim]

Personally, I think we have gone

back to the corporatist Robber Barons of

the 1880's-1920's where the government existed for the good of business and citizens were here to serve the

corporations. Except today they have even more advanced technologies to spy on and control the masses. Welcome to

the new Globalized Gilded Age.

[idesign]

Wow, you guys have been busy.



I think liberalism and conservatism still exist, in very meaningful ways, though conservatism is not what

we've known in the past.

From my view, conservatives have made the great mistake of trying to become popular,

both among liberals and the media. Compromising on principle is never honorable. Compromising with a Democrat is

always one-way.

An example would be Bush letting Ted Kennedy write a ridiculous education bill in his first term.

Or signing the Prescription Drug act. Both Democrat boondoggles, but what did Bush get in return for his "crossing

the aisle"? Nothing.

Bush is not a good example of a Conservative, but his actions illustrate the path taken by

conservatives towards some "middle" which will never be achieved. It simply cannot be as long as there are

fundamental differences in how to approach governance.

McCain is at the center of this, with his questionable

positions on illegal immigration, campaign finance, tax cuts, etc. Conservatives only "hate" McCain in contrast to

other conservatives which are, well, more conservative.

All the noise among conservatives about voting for

Obama/Hillary is nonsense, and I think its an angry reaction to the lack of a great conservative leader like Reagan.

Its a big disappointment to have only the unpredictable McCain. I really do think that Reps will swallow their

angst and pull the trigger, ooops, lever, for McCain.

I think Liberalism is alive and well and still pumping in

the hearts of Hillary and Obama. Taxing and spending is only the beginning of their unstated but very real agenda.

You won't hear too many details from either of them. Flowery language is like crack, feels good now but the

pushers won't talk about the logical conclusion.

For a liberal politician there is no social ill which cannot

be solved, controlled or squashed by a gov't program. There is no tyrant that can't be changed by counseling.

There is no parent which can't be improved upon by gov't school indoctrination. There is no way an individual can

manage their retirement investing better than a gov't bureaucracy. There is no law that can't be manipulated by

the right judge. No "right" to healthcare which can't be fleeced. All it takes is our money to fund it. Make no

mistake, its the Great Society on Barry Bond's drug of choice.

The size and scope of our current federal system

is a direct result of 60+ years of modern liberalism, and given the chance, there are certain current candidates

who would happily suck more life out of every citizen that's still moving, and regulate it if they're not

moving.

I guess that makes me a conservative, but I'm not sure where my "people" are headed.

PS I'm still

angry and frustrated with Obama. I'd never vote for him, but I'd hoped that he would use his remarkable skills

and obvious smarts to come out with a real message. Instead he spewed, in Harvard Law nuance, more race baiting. I

worry that so many are fooled by this guy, but its not surprising... "the medium is the message".

PPS

Corporations... I would NEVER excuse, but condemn, abuses like Enron et al. I would like to point out though that

public corporations are owned by stockholders, mostly in retirement accts of rank and file employees, widows,

orphans, etc etc. To the extent they can make a profit many, many wage earners prosper. As well, those same

corporations, and their wealthiest stockholders, among other wealthy individuals, pay some 80+% of all taxes

paid to the federal gov't. So, if a corp. gets a deal like, paying 5$million in taxes instead of $10million, so

they will open a plant that will provide 500 jobs as well as supporting a local economy... I just don't have a

problem with that. Its a tax break, not a subsidy.

PPPSThe $30million from the Fed to Bear-Stearns is

essentially a credit line. The firm was purchased by another firm (JP Morgan) and a huge cash infusion was pushed

into it. Any Fed funds borrowed will have to be paid back. Its not a gov't bail-out. I'm not even sure the Fed

funds will be needed after the buyout. I use lines of credit in my business when I have a cash flow shortage, its

the same thing. Propping up the financial markets with a credit line is not such a bad thing considering the

alternative. And yes, mismanagement deserves its due reward, like I would wish on most federal programs,

like the entire dept of education for starters.

[tounge]

Well said Idesign. However I don't

understand why you are angry with Obama. He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. A leopard can't change his

spots. He lies like virtually every other politician. I believe I told you earlier that he is of a Marxist bent and

I also said he was pretty much unelectable. I've been rather prophetic when it comes to him.

The table is

clearly being set for Ms. Rodham to become the next president of the USA or what was once the USA. China, Europe and

the Mideast nations continue to devalue our dollar and lead us into what is realistically going to become a

depression. I also see violence and rioting on the horizon. It isn't a pretty picture, to see what is going to be a

fall that will parallel the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Mtnjim]

...PPS

Corporations... I would NEVER excuse, but condemn, abuses like Enron et al. I would like to point out though that

public corporations are owned by stockholders, mostly in retirement accts of rank and file employees, widows,

orphans, etc etc. To the extent they can make a profit many, many wage earners prosper. As well, those same

corporations, and their wealthiest stockholders, among other wealthy individuals, pay some 80+% of all taxes paid to

the federal gov't. So, if a corp. gets a deal like, paying 5$million in taxes instead of $10million, so they will

open a plant that will provide 500 jobs as well as supporting a local economy... I just don't have a problem with

that. Its a tax break, not a subsidy...

Good in theory, but over the past 20 years most corporations have

ceased paying dividends to their shareholders. Today most profits go to the "C" level employees and the only way the

shareholders can make a profit is if they are lucky enough to sell their stocks on an up tick. Consider the Bear

stockholders. They bought their shares at a premium. Never had a say in the running of the company, never received

any of the profits, and will get about $2.00 a share in the sale.

[idesign]

Well said

Idesign. However I don't understand why you are angry with Obama. He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. A

leopard can't change his spots. He lies like virtually every other politician. I believe I told you earlier that he

is of a Marxist bent and I also said he was pretty much unelectable. I've been rather prophetic when it comes to

him.

The table is clearly being set for Ms. Rodham to become the next president of the USA or what was once the

USA. China, Europe and the Mideast nations continue to devalue our dollar and lead us into what is realistically

going to become a depression. I also see violence and rioting on the horizon. It isn't a pretty picture, to see

what is going to be a fall that will parallel the fall of the Roman Empire.

Of course you're right about

Obama's politics tongue, and I've known it to be correct. And I think your predictions are more and more likely

to come to pass.

Its just that I'm enough of a naive optimist that when I see someone as charismatic and capable

as Obama I envision a leader who can actually deliver an intelligent, reasoned and comprehensive set of positions

that, though fundamentally liberal, could transcend politics and bridge the gap at least to the point of being a

reasonable adversary.

I like Lieberman for these very reasons. He's no Obama, but there's no way Obama will

ever be a Lieberman, unless he grows up, a lot.

Obama's sealed the deal now, and must be a disappointment for

the Dems, even though the media was rhapsodic over his "major" race speech. As the race continues, the more he says

the deeper the hole.

[idesign]

Good in

theory, but over the past 20 years most corporations have ceased paying dividends to their shareholders. Today most

profits go to the "C" level employees and the only way the shareholders can make a profit is if they are lucky

enough to sell their stocks on an up tick. Consider the Bear stockholders. They bought their shares at a premium.

Never had a say in the running of the company, never received any of the profits, and will get about $2.00 a share

in the sale.

Correct to a point Jim, but a wise amateur investor (and good retirement accts) will not buy

and sell, they'll buy and hold. Even buying at $150 with current value at $2 can be a good investment if you hold

and weather the storm. It happens all the time.

The buyout will automatically raise the price, and I'd

predict shares to be at or near historical highs within a year.

The whole thing is unfortunate, mainly because

B-S was not really in trouble. Essentially there was an irrational run on liquidity creating a a short-term

situation. Volatility seems to be the rule these days.

Stockholders have a say in the company to the extent of

their ownership, makes sense.

Dividends are a liability on the books, and reduce value, take your pick.

[DrSmellThis]

Idesign, without being too

partisan, so I can directly understand the essence of your point better, could you expand on what exactly you

expected from Obama with the race speech compared to what he actually said?

I'm sort of half way knowledgeable

about the situation, as I reads lots of excerpts but not the whole speech. Further, I only know snippets about Rev

Wright and his pulpit statements. So I can't really wheel and deal on this issue with any kind of mastery. Please

be gentle with me if I am missing some set of facts and events.

From what I saw, it seemed like a normal mature

adult conversation about race, such as I might hear among my friends. It wasn't earth shattering from an academic

or sociological perspective. But it was way more honest, unguarded, and real than any other politician on race that

I've heard in a while. Again, this is just the part I know about.

For example, I thought he was making the point

that we all have people in our personal lives that say things we disagree with. Often the thing to do is to reject

the message without chopping them out of your life. He made the point that his white grandmother also says some

racially charged things, but he loves her just the same, even as he cringes sometimes. I'm sure his grandmother

would not be shocked to hear him say that. This is very true in the case of my own family. I also shudder to think

about being judged by all the things my own parish and high school priests have done or said. I think he also made

the poin that if you are a black politician who is active in the black community, that culturally you are going to

run into anger and resentment stemming from historical tendencies and traditions. You realistically have to both

accept and understand this if you are going to be involved with this community at all, just as you have to accept

you are going to run into people with substandard educations. It's just practical reality, and you can't be real

severe and "black and white" (no pun intended) when you are dealing with it, from within the middle of it. This

certainly "jives" with my own experience with black culture.

He made the point that rather than reject everything

about people with unresolved race issues, it is far more productive, whether you are dealing with a white person or

black person, to accept the feelings behind the statements as having understandable reasons for them. When you then

seek mutual understanding, followed by dialog, you have greater chances for success. This is an important idea for

politics in general.

This idea is directly applicable to foreign policy, for example. Instead of assuming you

can't negotiate or reason with those with whom we have big disagreements, you try for the deepest possible mutual

understanding of legitimate concerns of both sides, followed by communication and problem solving around these.



Were this the way we practiced normal diplomacy, it would represent a huge change from the way we have been

doing things. this is in stark contrast to the "either you're a friend or an enemy" approach; or the approach where

you simply lay out your demands and the related punishments for not meeting those demands. It's even a big contrast

with setting out things you're willing to give and compromise on, combined with a set of conditions both sides wish

to have granted. It requires a very significant degree of emotional maturity and IQ to do foreign policy likwe

this.

The world is too small, and we can no longer get away with relating that way, whether you are talking

between countries, between parties, or between races here. To be sure, in this country we all depend on one another

too much. It's not just an issue of whether you tolerate something or not, and assigning a "one" or a "zero" to the

two conditions.

So from what I understand, it all relates, and relates to a real proposed change in the general

way of doing things. It's just one kind of change, to be sure, but it is a real change.

That is not to say

everything about Obama is how I'd dial it up. It's not. But just from what I know about that particular issue --

which is not really enough -- I thought he did fine, like I would expect a normal intelligent adult to do. They were

real, genuine points that need to be made, and that are rarely made; and are applicable to the rest of a presidency,

from foreign relations to "across the aisle" communications; not just rhetoric.

[koolking1]

It

helps to get some perspective by not just watching the snippets that the network news provides and take a look at

the whole person that the Reverend is.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie"

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"

width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[koolking1]

here's

a link to see the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

[idesign]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie"

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"

width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

"Shockwave flash movie"? Is that porn? Don't make me delete

your ass KK.

object width="425" height="355" I'll take a pass, I like 'em taller than they are

wide.

[idesign]

here's

a link to see the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Isn't youtube great?

In the last few days I've watched dozens of videos of Wright and the commentary about him and Obama.

For a

number of years of my adult life I attended church very regularly, pretty much religiously (groooan, buh-dump-bump).

Beyond that I was involved in a couple of "lay leadership" groups which held retreats for those who sought deeper

meaning and experience in their faith. Studied the Bible pretty thoroughly, etc. Ok, those are my

"credentials".

As I listened to Rev.Wright I was engaged, enthralled, impressed and quite favorably taken by his

preaching. I can see why he has the great reputation he has in the theological community. I found myself liking

him quite a bit.

I would happily sit under Wright's teaching were it not for some of his particular views.



I don't need to repeat his controversial statements, suffice to say they are troublesome.

For perspective,

we have to look at theology, specifically one that accepts and espouses a prophetic view of our existence, filtered

through an understanding that God acts in a cause and effect manner. Prophetic not in foretelling the future, but

in interpreting events with a spiritual view.

Rev. Wright interpreted events in America in this light and, of

course, steeped in the experience of a black man who lived through the worst of modern America's civil rights

abuses.

All that to say... my only problem with Rev. Wright is that some of his views and remarks were way beyond

what is rational, or reasonably acceptable.

Beyond that, I think they are irresponsible in the light of race

relations. As long as the sins of the past are kept alive, bitterness and hatred continue to grow. The sooner a

spirit of forgiveness begins to take hold the sooner forward movement happens. Pumping up the past is not

helpful.

Forgiving is NOT forgetting. America will always be tainted by not only her treatment of blacks, but

others as well. However, the stains on our clothing should not be an embarrassment, but a mark of evidence that

people can overcome evil with good. Its just that it takes effort from all sides.

[idesign]

Long, intelligent, thoughtful, insightful post which requires thought to be replied to

as it deserves.

Doc, you and Bel are the most annoying people I've ever met!

Provoking

thought and all.... shite!

I joined this forum for a fun diversion and ended up with you guys. Sheesh



Jim, tongue, KK, don't EVEN crack a smile, you're as guilty as the rest.

May the polls of a

thousand politicians infest your decision making. What kind of a day will you have then? Huh? huh?

Talk to you

soon Doc.

[DrSmellThis]

...it's the curse of being a good listener! Most would just skim it and shoot from the hip. But you are obviously

still growing mentally and otherwise, and like to absorb things. I admire and applaud you for this. But I figure

this is one of those beneficial, substantive dialogs that are good for communities to have as current events

dictate.

***
The video was interesting, KK, as this is one the many kinds of things I've strived to understand

as I've aged and become more conscious of different ways of thinking; and deliberately more open minded.

His

point is that given all the terrorism we've propulgated on others, such as African Americans (slavery); Native

Americans (slaughter); and he also has in mind miscellaneous global abuses of other peoples, through military or

economic means; we shouldn't be suprised to see some violent energy make its way back in our direction.

I both

agree 100&#37; with that sentiment, but also see how some could interpret it as implying the 9-11 attacks were

somehow justified.

That is because some people's minds, especially when guided by various preconceptions, want

to file everything into a black and white category.

If the Reverend says we shouldn't be suprised, or implies

there's a sort of Karmic element; therefore he is justifying the attack, the bastard! It's so easy to think this

way, most do to some extent.

So many people think this way, where there is no room for grey, or mature adult

frankness, or non-political correctness; that Obama has no choice but to disavow the Reverend, agree with him or

not. I probably would too, if I was running for something, just because so few are going to "get it," without

feeling threatened.

But from what I believe is a mature adult perspective, where many shades of grey are seen as

normal and acceptable, challenging though they might be; he has a point.

The history white people tell is just

going to be different than the one AA or NA people are going to tell. Their story is not far-fetched from their

perspective, nor are their feelings.

So what is the straightest path to peace about it all?

Certainly there

is some validity to Idesign's point that at some point, forgiveness, and identity as fellow Americans, has to take

over; for peace to reign on the topic. You can't argue with that, as far as it goes.

But it is also true that

abusers and perpetrators typically can't be the ones to demand forgiveness or forgetting, especially before things

have been resolved emotionally, and behaviorally.

There is going to be a mountain of crap to deal with, and

those who have been wronged will forgive as the healing permits. It's like the recovering alcoholic who has to deal

with resentments and consequnces from his or her drunken behavior long after becoming sober.

In my experience,

in normal human healing processes, and in mental health; the in between (non-behavioral) step is just to let someone

vent and express their feelings, and to try to demonstrate a thorough understanding.

We don't do that by

dumping our own rage back at the wronged person or persons, demanding they get over it.

That is what I see

happening with the Reverend, via Obama.

As a mental health professional, I believe that, instead, in seeking

mutual understanding, the anger and resentment actually dissipates naturally that way, and dissipates the fastest.



It would be a psychological myth to suppose that showing understanding of such sentiments and historical

interpretations would be some kind of "rage indulgence" that merely makes it grow stronger, at least in the case of

normal, average, or healthy people.

I guarantee that if any white person demonstrated undertanding to Wright in

person, he or she would be warmly received, for example. We needn't fear the rage, or what have you. It is a

special courage that honors the rage, gives it permission to be, understands it, at the same time as it gives life

the strength to go on about its business. The reward for that courage is the shortest route to peace.

That for

sure is the way it works in normal human relationships, so I see no reason why it can't work on a cultural level.



Conversely, feeling a sense of healthy guilt ("we did wrong", rather than the "I am bad" of shame) is no sign of

weakness. Rather it is a kind of courage to carry that around while still loving oneself and being able to maintain

relationships with those who have been wronged.

Admittedly, it is a delicate balance.

But personally, I can

listen to Wright say all that without feeling defensive as an American.

It's just an idea, an understanding. I

can go there. I mean, this crap ain't happening in Denmark or Sweden.

The question is, "what do we do?" We

can't be paralyzed by our feelings. We have to live as cooperative neighbors. We need each other. Now.

That is

the sense in which we have to move "past" it, or more accurately, through it; no matter which side you are

on.

[belgareth]

Doc, you

and Bel are the most annoying people I've ever met!

Provoking thought and all.... shite!

I joined

this forum for a fun diversion and ended up with you guys. Sheesh

Jim, tongue, KK, don't EVEN crack a

smile, you're as guilty as the rest.

May the polls of a thousand politicians infest your decision making. What

kind of a day will you have then? Huh? huh?

Talk to you soon Doc.

Why, thank you.

[koolking1]

smile out of IDesigns

post!!! Bruce deserves a big pat on the back for this well-designed forum and somehow knowing he'd be getting this

kind of discussion here.

Barack Obama is back on top after this weekend, 48% to HRC's 45. I haven't seen

them yet but have heard the garbage tabloids really laid it on thick to Obama but it may be backfiring as people see

them and find them ludicrous. Ron Paul's campaign manager made an appearance, think it was on Fox - don'r

remember, and says Paul is still in the race. I have to wonder what Romney's game plan is. McCain's going around

the world making gaffe after gaffe.

[koolking1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

Today the HRC campaign issued an advisory that HRC

misspoke, but only once!!!

Apparently her staff uses a different dictionary than I do.

[idesign]

I've started this post around

50 times and am still not satisfied. I tried very hard to be factual with the facts and non-partisan. I still

don't know if I make any sense either.

Full text of speech

here.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...h_the_text.php
If you read the

text you'll see how well constructed it is.

What we might be seeing here re: Obama's speech, is people reading

from it pretty much what they want to, filtered through their own leanings. Chris Matthews (msnbc) gushed, and

compared Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Others say it was just more boilerplate Obama. I disagree with both of those.



I'm not sure what that means with respect to what Obama actually communicated, or what he was trying to

communicate. One thing for sure, he left a lot of doubt as to his position.

And that is the biggest problem I

have, Obama didn't even address the issue at hand. The issue was not race, it was how close Obama and Wright were,

and how Obama could closely tie himself to a man who said the kind of outrageous things Wright did. Just the fact

that he made it a speech on race obscures the issue and tacitly allows Wright a pass.

Wright's remarks in

question were vitriolic, hate-filled, paranoid at times and completely out of touch with what 99.9&#37; of us would

consider in touch with reality.

This is not insignificant. Someone who wants to be President counts as a major

influence on his life over 20 yrs a man who states that the AIDS virus was invented by the gov't to inject black

people for the purpose of genocide. That's just for starters. Wright's outlandish remarks are plentiful, making

it obvious that he had a pretty well developed ideology along these lines. These remarks were sold by the church on

DVDs titled "Best of Jeremiah Wright". If I ever was at a church and heard something like that it would be the last

time I went there.

Now, I will completely agree that Rev. Wright had many good things to say. That does not

excuse the irresponsible way he fueled race warfare and perpetuated the "victim" mentality. Not to mention the

crazy stuff.

Back to Obama, first he tells the NYTimes that he was never aware of these things. Three days later

he says he was sitting in church when some things were said. Ok, he's a politician.

What he should have

done in his speech was to quote specific statements and tell us exactly what he thought about them. Frankly, nobody

cared who was black or not, what mattered was what Obama *believed* about Wright's statements. All he could come

up with was "controversial" and "divisive". Did he ever confront his pastor about such statements?

What he did

do, was change the subject. Saying that you disagree with some unspecified ideas does not address the issue. Going

on to make race the issue, and dismiss Wright's remarks as a result of black victimhood not only serves to ignore

the question, but compounds the problem.

He says "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice

in this country", then procedes to do just that, from slavery to the modern day. Summing up that history he says

"This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." Fine,

understood, but does that excuse bad behavior?

Obama: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that

anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour

in American life occurs on Sunday morning."

I can understand anger, and accept it as unfortunate reality.

Vitriolic hatred is another matter. Churches "segregated"? I think its a matter of choice. The nuance is

rich, this guy's good, or rather his writer. He uses this device several times, making a point then immediately

distracting with another idea. Clever writer.

Also, I think its quite a stretch trying to draw a moral

equivalence between Ferraro and his Grandmother on the one hand, and the comments of Wright on the other. Not even

close.

Those are some specifics. In the end I think he used moral equivalence and white guilt over past offenses

to wiggle out of a problem.

In general I wish this speech would have been made 3 months from now, minus the

Wright problem. Because, it could have been a pretty good speech. The fact that he brought it out now and used

it as a cover is disappointing, and it taints his message.

I think the issue has a life of its own now and

won't go away. Obama really should have handled it differently. Now it'll haunt him.

I agree Doc, he talked

pretty openly and honestly. I also think it would've been buried on page 6 without the Wright angle.

I think he

should bring Bill Cosby onto his team as some sort of "domestic adviser".

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for the thoughtful

post. My keyboard is on the blink right now, so I'm going to type a few things from a coffee shop, even though I'm

really ill prepared. Otherwise, who knows when I can get to it. I fully admit I'm being lame/totally inadequate, in

saying everything that follows.

I'm sure there is lots to agree with there. But you're making me feel like I

want to know more about Rev. Wright before feeling like I can comment in a way that does justice to what you've

given us in your post. One has to weave a lot of issues together to really address it.

I do seem to agree that

that shouldn't be the only thing he says about it. However, to me it looks like the stuff he did say in the speech

was appropriate, if inadequate, to what I know so far of Wright.

There were several paragraphs in a row in the

middle of the speech, in which he pretty severely rebuked him in "conceptual" detail, and seemed to address that

there was some outrageous stuff; though without itemizing the incendiary statements.

But it just looks like it

wasn't enough for you, and for a significant chunk of Americans. I probably will end up agreeing that it wasn't

enough, assuming that was the only thing he ever said about it, or ever will say. Maybe you're right that he tried

to accomplish too much in one speech.

I might agree he should have just defended himelf on Wright. But the

downside of that is you miss an opportunity to teach, inspire, and inform the public about your vision for the

country and go completely on the defensive. Ideally you try to do just what he did, if you can get away with it.

Maybe he didn't. It's a matter of debate how much he should have been on the defensive. If he tries to satisfy

everyone he ensures that he will be too much on the defensive.

So he picked a middle point, which ended up being

good anough for a lot of people, since he got such rave reviews. I sort of agree with you, so far, that we could

stand to hear a bit more.

For me to say anything more, I have to really wrap my head around Wright's stuff a lot

better.

For example, I wonder about the distinction between "hating America" and simply having profound distrust,

rage, and disgust with those running America. Where does Wright fall on that? At this moment I don't know enough to

present an opinion. For people who believe that the Bush Admin has essentially been a "crime family", they are going

to wonder about a lot of possible conspiracies and other stuff, out of mistrust; and are going to consider

themselves patriotic and rational to do so, even if the particular conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. To me

those people might believe some controversial or stupid things, (A statement about AIDS being all about someone out

to get blacks is pretty ignorant regarding AIDS, for starters.). But for me to think they hate their country is

quite another thing. I generally assume most of the worst critics of government among our citizenry love their

country. But I have to learn more.

It may be that Obama is just going to have to be stained by this. He doesn't

seem to be willing to say he regrets being a part of the church. It looks like he got a lot spiritually from that

church over the years, starting when he was quite young and immature; and that he just stayed in the same church, as

most people do, just out of personal tradition (myself not included). He is not going to disown it, and is going to

take the consequences.

Idesign, I agree that I'd walk out the door of a church where the minister was saying

things like that on a regular basis. But I get really angry at most all religions to the point where no way am I

going to belong.

But I didn't grow up as an African-American.

I almost think strong minded and strong willed

black folk almost owed it to themselves to consider some more radical positions and thinking, from within their

worlds, just as most of them grow out of it. You have to go through a pissed off, even enraged, phase in your

development if you are a member of a persecuted minority. If I'd been a young, smart black male, I would have

entertained some radical stuff along the way, especially if I was getting spiritually inspired at the same

time.

It's hard when you are judged by the way you worship, or the food you choose for your soul. In some ways

that is the most private thing a person can do. Wright was probably a really great minister otherwise. If someone

turned you on to God, and helped you feel close to "the Divine", wouldn't most of us be willing to trade off some

things?

I think I agree with the few main ideas of your post to some extent. I just don't know to what extent

until I erase my own ignorance about it.

Maybe the Koolest King or someone else with better knowledge than me has

some more insights to share.

I like your Bill Cosby idea, in that he's great with avoiding the victim talk, and

getting people to take responsibility. But the Reverend apparently needed most of the help with that.

[idesign]

You're right Doc, he had a fine

line to walk and gave it his best shot. I guess for me, it was a matter of adding this speech to the cumulative

total of what I know about Obama, and leaving me a little cold. I think he left an open question mark about his

judgment.

If McCain had spent the last 20 yrs in a church with a preacher like, say David Duke, I wonder what

media reaction he would get.

As for Rev. Wright, I don't think he hates America, he's just over the edge of

reason, more than a little.

I'm following what you've been saying about the value of a mature dialogue, and

agree. I think the most important thing you said was allowing time to work out something that we can only

encourage, and not solve outright.