Democrats & Liberals Archives

Race Dialogue

There is confusion about Barack Obama’s message about talking to your enemies, to those you disagree with, to those who do not look like you and to those who have a different viewpoint from, yours. Because Obama happens to be black this has turned into a dialogue about race.

You have all heard about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack's pastor, and his outrageous outbursts condemning the U.S. All of us have been taken aback by the pastor's inflamatory language. Some have condemned him and others are trying to explain him.

Obama thinks it is a question of attitude. The Republican attitude that most of us, even Democrats, have absorbed stresses the importance and value of competition in everything. Just listen to Hillary Clinton whose every other word out of her mouth is "fight." If you want anything you must "fight" for it. If you are mistreated you must "fight" for your dignity. If you are losing your job you must "fight" to keep it.

This attitude of rugged and self-interest competition is everywhere. Gregory Rodriguez, who I thought would be sympathetic to Obama's explanations, wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times that shows he does not get the real Obama message.

Rodriguez says that Obama had orginally asked for a racial dialogue and now that Rev. Wright has started one Obama doesn't like it because it is not going the way he thought it should. According to Rodriguez, we can't bring races together simply by talking:

But lovely as it sounds, apart from the elite spokespeople, that's not the way race is lived and felt in America. For most people, it's not about statistics or civil rights cases, politics or access to healthcare. It's not even about redress or reconciliation. Rather, it's about something much deeper and more visceral, less quantifiable and more heartfelt. It's about memories and respect, hurt feelings and long grudges, fears and expectations.

All of this is true and well said. But this is what Rodriguez does not understand: Yes, dialogue between groups that believe in the primacy of competition will engender the type of talk indulged in by Wright. This attitude leads to constant emphasis on self interest and to our "fighting." It leads to the vituperative language of Wright. This in turn, is replied with more vituperative language.

This is not the dialogue that Obama seeks. Obama, first and foremost, wants to change our attitude towards each other, our constant adherence to our self-interest, our idea that we must "fight" for everything and that what benefits you hurts me. Once this happens we will talk to each other with more empathy and understanding. We will get to know each other better. Instead of "fighting" we will be enjoying each other. The idea of race would fade.

It is this type of dialogue with empathy that Obama stands for. If he is elected president U.S. will go a long way toward healing the racial divide.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 5, 2008 5:36 PM
Comments
Comment #252204

Paul:

You have authored a concise and well thought out piece that combines a politician, a controversial religious figure that is connected to him and a major hot button issue that has festered in the soul of this country for a centuries. Yet you were able to do it in a way that shold invoke apolitical discussions. Thanks. I am curious as to where this will lead.

Posted by: submariner at May 5, 2008 6:37 PM
Comment #252205

I have to disagree with the fine points of your article, Paul.

First, new poll data show the American people have not altered their opinions as a result of the Pastor Wright quotations. Guilt by association is a ploy that the polls show was nearly entirely ineffective by both the Clinton camp and Republicans. The same poll shows Americans fear the Wright guilt by association could alter the General election, but, that is a fear of a possible future outcome based on historical experience (Swiftboating).

Which stands in stark contrast to the reality that this ploy has not worked in the present tense. And therefore, is not likely to work in the general election, either. Same people will be voting then as are voting and being polled now, and Wright incidents have not altered people’s views of Obama.

Second, the racial divide has been closing more rapidly for almost a half century now. Obama’s election is not a turning point or major leap forward in America’s march away from its slavery past. It is just another step in that direction; an inevitable step en route to becoming the melting pot of equality in the eyes of the law and nation of tolerance and respect for the unalienable rights of all people whose ideal has led us for centuries inexorably toward a better America for all its people.

I do agree with you entirely that Obama represents a sea change in the American psychology away from the GOP’s foundational philosophy of competition in all human endeavor toward a philosophy built more on cooperation as yielding significantly more gains for the American people. The evidence of this is the way the divisive cultural issues have abated as centerpieces of this and the last election cycle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #252207

While I agree that Obama does not seek out divisive racial attitudes and that his view of the ‘races’ working together in harmony is a noble one…

Why does his election as president “go a long way toward healing the racial divide” in your opinion?

Perhaps I am not automatically understanding your point, but does the president have the power to change the way people think and see each other?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 5, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #252220

Wow, talk about having your blinders on while sipping the kool-aid :

At the same time, the least one sided network, Fox News regularly show so called non-biased news castor that call Sen. Clinton a vampire or worst as most of the non-biased commentators laugh together.

And the correlation here is ????:

As a disabled Vet, I am not impressed with the Media one-sided attacks that are typical of Sen. Obama and his unethical campaign members.

Posted by: janedoe at May 5, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #252227

It’s Deval Patrick, not Patrick Duval, and David Axelrod’s organization was the source of the “plagiarized” quotes.

The topic is Race Dialogue. There seems to be an alternate reality involved in this somehow. It’s another example of how BHO’s supporters think he is giving us permission to do what so many of us have been doing for longer than BHO has been living in the Continental US. I understand from some posters here that they are white and have little contact with anyone black. That has not been my experience in any part of my life.

I have always had family in the north and the south, and was well aware of racial issues from early childhood. I was raised partly by a relation who came from a small city in Louisiana, and she eventually lived for many years about 2 miles from Trinity UCC.

Gradually, many people developed a level of comfort in dealing with people superficially unlike themselves. Others did not. Some are white, some are black. Some people are secure in their personhood, others are insecure, and seek to blame someone else for their personal problems.

Competition is good. We should have more of it, in the realm of ideas, and elsewhere. Giving unfair advantages to some, whether legacies or set-asides, causes resentment, and diminishes the person who is the recipient.

submariner, if you know submarinesforever, tell him he needs to get a blood test regularly when working for a chemical company, to check for contaminents. I’m worried about him.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #252228

Paul,

You cannot really believe that the “value” of competition, of the fight, is a Republican idea that is slowly and only recently becoming part of the value system of Democrats.
Democrats like FDR and Truman exorted America to fight the Germans and the Japanese. LBJ created the War on Poverty. Labor unions, a mainstay of traditional Democratic policitics, have for decades fought for the rights of the workers. Democrats have fought against racism, sexism, and isms to numerous to count.
These fights have been at times physical, at times legal, and endlessly verbal. They have been ruthless and staggeringly competitive.
In fact, competition, far from being the creature of Republicans, is a quintissential American value. We Americans love a good fight. We thrive on competition. It is not Republicans who created football, basketball, contract bridge, poker, American Idol, and Survivor. We love to compete and to watch others compete. We love to win and we hate to lose. It is in us, and it has nothing to do with politics or liberals or conservatives.
If Obama really wanted to change the approach of the American people, he would write and preach and teach. Instead, he is competing like none before him to win the presidency. He is a fierce competitor with a burning desire to win.
The approach you attribute to him…one of working with others to bring people together…is not new. Woodrow Wilson tried it, much to his eventual sorrow. The problem with the approach is that it requires that those “others” use the same approach. Unforturtunately, the “others” often are just too doggone competitive to go along.

Posted by: Steve at May 5, 2008 10:14 PM
Comment #252230

Steve,

As did McCain and you see where that got him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 5, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #252254

BTW, those that think Obama is still soaring and Wright hasn’t hurt his campaign:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Hillary Clinton with a four-point advantage over John McCain, 47% to 43%. At the same time, McCain leads Barack Obama by an identical margin, 47% to 43%

I will be surprised if Hillary isn’t sending that to every superdelegate (verbally committed or no) as the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina get underway today…

Oh and:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation’s Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most—58%—say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 6, 2008 2:12 AM
Comment #252258

I am sure that some % of the population will not vote for Obama because he is black and some % will vote for him because he is. For example, the black population votes for Obama in the high 90%. This is usually high. Overall, that will probably balance out.

I don’t believe that most Americans object to him based on race and most Americans are not racist in any reasonable definition of that term. In fact, what people object to recently is the racism of Rev Wright. His hatred is so odious that it offends non-racists and some are worried that Obama might share some of these ideas.

Obama has given no indications that he does agree with Wright on those extremist idea we all talk about, but it is fitting and proper that he explain his long standing relationship with that guy. We know very little about Obama, so every piece of information is relatively more important in helping us know his character.

The Wright affair has seriously hurt Obama. He was hurt because he initially defended Wright and his subsequent denunciations sounded politically motivated or worse personally motivated. Obama was justifiable angry that Wright betrayed him personally, but he should have been outraged much earlier when he heard some of what Wright had to say about America.

As a McCain supporter, I would rather face Hilary in the general election, but not for the reasons most Democrats would think. I believe McCain can defeat Obama more easily than he can defeat Hilary BUT I believe that victory will be much more bitter. Obama supporter will invoke race, change etc. and claim that their man was defeated for that reason. You can see the vitriol they are heaping on their fellow Democrat and erstwhile hero Hilary Clinton. Imagine the hatred and bile they will pour on a Republican like John McCain. They will be really sore losers. It is better if Hilary takes out the wonder man. They are going to hate somebody for it and better if his fans hate her instead.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2008 8:06 AM
Comment #252266

Obama’s campaign, supposedly to transcend the race issue, has already played the race card on more than occation, and, I fear, it will not be the last time. I fear that the campaign to transcend race will start playing the race card with such frequency that Obama cannot be criticized without the race card being played. Criticize Obama (for ANYTHING) and you’re a racist.

We’ll see how Obama’s handlers conduct this campaign…but I am not optimistic.

A meaningful racial dialog? HA! Not possible with race pimps and race whores of all colors having ANY say whatsoever.

You actually think Sharpton and Jackson will sit down with the KKK and the skinheads to have a meaningful race based dialog?

Ain’t gonna happen.

Anyway, who ever said that having a confab of “leaders” would work? It’s all show and smoke and mirrors unless we…in our individual lives…take up the cause and apply race neutrality in our personal dealings with others.

The only way to have a meaningful dialog about race is to treat each person YOU meet as you would like to be treated. That’s step one. And once you actually start talking, judge that man or woman based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Without personal individual committment, a national dialog on race is just so much wasted oxygen on a “feel good” charade.

Posted by: Jim T at May 6, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #252268

Rhinehold:

“Perhaps I am not automatically understanding your point, but does the president have the power to change the way people think and see each other?”

YES, HE HAS.

As a matter of fact, this is his main job. As a leader of the country, he sets the pace by everything he does, whom he appoints - especially judges - what he says to the people.

People want to follow a leader. Someone like Bush destroys people’s interaction with each other. Someone with a more pleasant nature, changes everything.

By the way, as Republicans say daily, Reagan changed the nation. Remember “morning in America”?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 6, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #252276

Let’s imagine that this forum is a microcosm of the nation’s electorate. Represented here are the views of liberals, moderates and conservatives, each bringing with them their own experiences, political views and biases.

Have any of you arguing the case for Obama won over even one person from either the Clinton or McCain camp? Extrapolating from this little group, how does one make the giant leap to assume that the electorate will be any different with Obama leading the nation? Will his words and actions nullify our individual political beliefs and desires? I think not.

I won’t become less conservative because a “President” Obama spends more money we don’t have and raises my taxes. I won’t become less conservative because a “President” Obama steals my accumulated wealth to spend on someone else. I won’t become less conservative because a “President” Obama flees from the terrorist battlefield and advocates surrendering our national existance to the United Nations. I won’t become less conservative when a “President” Obama nominates socially liberal judges who make new law from the bench and thrash our constitution protecting individual rights and freedom from government interference.

And I certainly won’t become less conservative when a “President” Obama lectures me on how stupid I am for clinging to my God, my many guns, my love for America, both past and future, and for believing that right now; today, every man and woman, regardless of race, already has a chance to fullfill their dreams in the United States.

Posted by: Jim M at May 6, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #252280

“People want to follow a leader” Really? Who wants to follow a leader? Who is the leader that they want to follow? I am a little concerned about followers and leaders. It sounds like a childhood game, or a strange religion. It also smacks of elitism and inequality. Grown up people who already know what they are doing, don’t need a leader, they want someone who will represent their views, to follow the people. That is our form of government. The “follow the leader” thing sounds fascist to me.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #252282

ohrealy, our entire society functions on the relationship of leaders and followers. It is a product of specialization of labor. None of us can be experts in all the areas of endeavor that are required to support our incredibly complex lifestyles. Hence, we rely on leaders with expertise in areas outside our own to sustain those areas of our life we have neither the time, education, or resources to manage ourselves.

Try living without an employer, industry leaders who provide you with everything from food and medicines to car and home maintenance. Grown up people rely on leaders every minute of their lives. They may not be informed or intelligent enough to recognize that the security they feel when going to sleep depends upon the leadership of our military and policing organizations, or the leadership in the energy sector that provides the energy to heat or cool our bedrooms at night. But, those leaders and their followers are depended upon nonetheless. Ignorance of that dependency does not diminish that dependency.

We are all followers of leaders, and many of us even enjoy being a leader from time to time, and fewer still are leaders by profession. But, there is no question we are all incredibly dependent upon leaders and followers every minute of our lives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #252286

“the security they feel when going to sleep depends upon the leadership of our military and policing organizations” In this world? In this country? Military and Policing? Are you really sure that’s what you meant to say? It seems like mass hypnosis has taken over this year.

The police are armed bureaucrats, riding around in cars while staring at computer screens. The military is a jobs program, being replaced by mercenaries, wasting taxpayers money pretending to defend us from the boogeyman of the decade.

This decade is almost over. I wonder who the next bad guy will be, or if the medieval terrorists will keep our interest while they are busy growing dope in Afghanistan.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #252293

“Because Obama happens to be black this has turned into a dialogue about race”

No, because Obama sat there for 20+ years listening to a racist and said nothing, denied it and finally denounced it, is why this is a “dialogue about race.”

How is the US going to go a “long way toward healing the racial divide” of the entire country, when he couldn’t heal the racial divide of just one man?

Posted by: kctim at May 6, 2008 5:44 PM
Comment #252296

David R. Remer:

Your statements on leadership are spot on and I am glad you shared your prespective with us. At times we lose that perspective.

Ohrealy:

Nice quip on on the submariner sig I used, that is what happens when I try to type a response while playing poker. But please do not lose any sleep on the count of my health, I assure you that my non-union, non-government, employer provided health insurance plan covers any testing and treatment that I may need AND covers me better than any national healthcare program currently proposed.

As far as your comments about the police and military go, I would like to point out that the journalist and bloggers do not provide freedom of speech, the lawyers do not provide legal protection, and the Constitution does not ensure to you that any of the rights listed or reserved for you will be your rights. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces are the guarantor of your rights and freedoms. Also, there are many areas in this country that are practically lawless. If you think that the police do not make you safe, visit one of these areas. Regardless what you think of the men and women that are in service to this country at the risk of their own lives, or what you think of the organizations they belong to, you would even have the ability to post here were it not for them.

Posted by: submarinesforever at May 6, 2008 7:22 PM
Comment #252297

Paul
I don’t know where you got that notion that the President can change the way I think BS. No president has the power to change the way I think. I think BHO is a racist and if he gets elected he’ll still be a racist. I whole heartedly agree with kctim’s post #252293. GWB was a jerk when he got elected and he is still a jerk.

Posted by: KAP at May 6, 2008 7:46 PM
Comment #252303

Jack, thanks for trying to put a curse on us. HRC was hoping the media would do something, but they like promoting BHO, since he buys so much airtime, and they even throw in free air time when he wants it, just to keep the money flowing in.

HRC has to hope that something will happen before the convention, but can’t allow her campaign to be a source. The Rpblcns are playing a fun game. I even saw Fux defending him against one of his detractors.

If BHO is nominated, then you guys will start having your fun. Because of the electoral college, only 2 Democrats have ever been elected in a year ending in 8, Jackson and Truman. HRC and WJC are already running like Truman. They know history, and know what they are doing. BHO only knows what his advisors tell him.

Submarinersforever, I have lived in 7 places, and never found the police to be very useful anywhere in the last 30 years. On lawlessness, I am familiar with that, it exists in places where the locals won’t protect themselves, and no one considers them worth protecting.

“the Constitution does not ensure to you that any of the rights listed or reserved for you will be your rights…the United States Armed Forces are the guarantor of your rights and freedoms.” NO, the courts are supposed to do that, when the judges are not appointed by Rpblcns anyway. The Armed Forces have never guaranteed me anything but tax payments.

“any testing and treatment that I may need”, Just get your blood tested regularly, at least every other month. That company should be doing that for you. If they’re not, they do not have your best interests in mind. Believe it or not, there is a reason that labor unions exist.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #252313

I don’t believe there is any confusion at all about how “progressives” will run foreign policy….which is why despots and terrorists around the globe root for Progressives to win US election.

For example, take the last election. Castro, Kerry, Osama Bin Laden and others came out for Kerry (Kerry himself blamed his defeat at one meeting on Osama’s support. If you think terrorists and brutal dictators want liberal “progressives” in the White House because they mean us well, you are fooling yourself. They believe progressives are foolish and weak, unable to use force against them and easily manipulated because liberals have a childish world view, and almost Anti-US view they can use to achieve their global goals against us.

Posted by: StephenL at May 7, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #252314

It’s turned into a dialogue about race because Wright was a racist bigot and Obama told us the average white person is a racist like his grandmother and then went on to attempt to justify black on White hate and radical liberation theology of Wright.

Posted by: StephenL at May 7, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #252332

“NO, the courts are supposed to do that, when the judges are not appointed by Rpblcns anyway. The Armed Forces have never guaranteed me anything but tax payments.” Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 10:13 PM

What a shameful, disgraceful, and totally ridiculous statement. I wish I could voice my total disgust for these words but it would never pass the censors.

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #252334

“What a shameful, disgraceful, and totally ridiculous statement. I wish I could voice my total disgust for these words but it would never pass the censors.”

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 11:36 AM

I could not agree more

Posted by: BOHICA at May 7, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #252345

Jim, and BOHICA

All you have to do to see how race relations still are in this country is to reference clarencec’s statement #252342.

Posted by: Rocky at May 7, 2008 1:24 PM
Comment #252349

BOHICA and Jim M., thanks for disagreeing with me. Right wing radicals, who are opposed to democracy, and want to replace our form of government with a corporate oligarchy, should stop pretending to wave the American flag, and wave the flags of their favorite corporations instead. The military has nothing to do with ensuring anything here. You are confusing our form of government with regimes in other countries that you would evidently prefer.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #252373

“BOHICA and Jim M., thanks for disagreeing with me. Right wing radicals, who are opposed to democracy, and want to replace our form of government with a corporate oligarchy, should stop pretending to wave the American flag, and wave the flags of their favorite corporations instead. The military has nothing to do with ensuring anything here. You are confusing our form of government with regimes in other countries that you would evidently prefer.”

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 01:36 PM

WHO is confused about our form of government? Acording to our founding documents, our government is NOT a Democracy. It is a Republic.

I strongly believe in the constitution of the United States. If this makes me a right wing radical, then I guess I’ll wear that badge with some honor. I believe however that I’m in the mainstream of America.

You have it wrong when you say that I want corporations to own America. I want America to be owned by those who work hard, save, and invest and take chances in the country they claim to love. You seem to want government to own corporations. If not own them outrightm then at least to regulate them so heavily that they are controlled by the government. I think this is wrong.

I’ll continue waving the AMERICAN flag. I’m proud to be an American and really feel sorry that you appear not to be.

As far as your statement that the military does not insure your rights, You are either totally ignorant in which case I suggest you educate yourself or you are making that statement in total disreguard of all the servicemen past and present who have sacraficed for us in which case you have lost all my respect.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 7, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #252379

BOHICA, thank you again for your comments, but you don’t have to lie about having any respect that I would be able to lose. The military is Rpblcn corporpate welfare and socialist job creation, and has nothing to so with servicemen in the past.

Right wing lunatics are also trying to convert it into a Christian army, to the dismay of service members who don’t want to lose promotion based on membership in a church.

“I’m proud to be an American and really feel sorry that you appear not to be.” What a lie! You hate this country and the people who live here. Quit waving my flag, go wave a Kuwaiti flag, an Iraqi flag or better yet, a Cayman
Islands flag for the corporate tax dodging welfare scum that you defend.

Now post more lies and stupidity please!

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #252381

“What a lie! You hate this country and the people who live here. Quit waving my flag, go wave a Kuwaiti flag, an Iraqi flag or better yet, a Cayman
Islands flag for the corporate tax dodging welfare scum that you defend”

I’ll pass on any comments.. This can stand on it’s own.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 7, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #252384
Rocky get to work and give me one example of Black leadership.Even if its for the benifit of blacks only.Here in America,the great black leaders are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton,Even Farrakhan is concidered by blacks to be Great.Your Guilt for the black plight runneth over.Obama is a Fart in the Wind and blowing out of sight and out of mind of serious Americans.

Harriet Tubman
George Washington Carver
Martin Luther King Jr
Andrew Young
Paul Cuffe
Richard Allen
Fredrick Douglass
Booker T Washington
W.E.B. DuBois
Ida B Wells-Barnett
A Philip Randolph
Ray Wilkins
Thurgood Marshall
James Farmer
Whitney M Young Jr
Banjamin Hooks
Ralph Abernathy
Nelson Mandela

….

I could go on but I won’t.

Instead I will take a chance on violating the Rules for Participation by calling you one of the biggest idiots I’ve read in the history of reading comments on this site.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #252388

I agree Rhinehold. I read this site a lot and never post, but I am saddened and outraged by clarancec’s comments. It would be easier to take if I knew he was alone in his “beliefs” (ignorance)

Posted by: Kiki at May 7, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #252395

It’s not ignorance, it’s a psychological problem having to do with internal self-hatred being brought to bear externally.

Pity is the proper emotion, not sadness.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #252396

One of the duties of government outlined in our founding documents found in Article 1, Section 8 is “To raise and support Armies” and “To provide and maintain a Navy”. I merely cite this to address the comment;

“The military has nothing to do with ensuring anything here. You are confusing our form of government with regimes in other countries that you would evidently prefer.” made by BOHICA at May 7, 2008 03:29 PM

I extend an invitation to bohica to comment.

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #252398

Thurgood Marshall was the first name that came to my mind, but the people arguing for racism would degrade anyone on that list for whatever reason they could come up with. You can’t convince people that hate, not to hate.

I used to work with a Free Will Baptist minister in FL. When he needed seasonal work done, he would go to the black section of town, and get some men to come to work. After the Reagan/Bush drug revolution, he could no longer get anyone to work, because everyone was selling drugs, and didn’t want to leave their corner. Many people go to prison, and get longer and longer sentences, in contrast to white offenders.

Also in law and order, death penalty, tough on crime Florida, I worked with someone(white) who killed a man, and got twenty years house arrest, and one of the county supervisors(also white) served 2 years for killing his wife.

Jails in counties with a largely elderly retired population are almost all black, the few whites there being demonstrably mentally ill. These men are used as an unpaid labor force by the counties, so there is an incentive to keep the jails full.

That is some of what is behind Rev. Wright’s anger, which is wrong when it is directed against the country at large, since many of us don’t advocate any of this nonsense.

Jim M, the four original departments of the US government were State, Justice, Treasury, and the Post Office, so I guess they weren’t too worried about the military, not having created any enemies for themselves yet. I am in favor of military expenditure that are not pork barrel projects, or payments to business cronies that are past or future employers of the people in charge.

The founders were talking about raising armies in time of war, which they did not think would be a permanent condition, and the Navy they were envisioning would be the size of the Coast Guard.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #252399

Well, the founders did not want a standing army for a variety of reasons…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #252400

“One of the duties of government outlined in our founding documents found in Article 1, Section 8 is “To raise and support Armies” and “To provide and maintain a Navy”. I merely cite this to address the comment;

“The military has nothing to do with ensuring anything here. You are confusing our form of government with regimes in other countries that you would evidently prefer.” made by BOHICA at May 7, 2008 03:29 PM

I extend an invitation to bohica to comment.

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 06:24 PM


Okay Jim, I’ll comment.

I agree with you 100% If you read thru the comments you will see my position and see that I was quoting and responding.

“BOHICA and Jim M., thanks for disagreeing with me. Right wing radicals, who are opposed to democracy, and want to replace our form of government with a corporate oligarchy, should stop pretending to wave the American flag, and wave the flags of their favorite corporations instead. The military has nothing to do with ensuring anything here. You are confusing our form of government with regimes in other countries that you would evidently prefer.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 01:36 PM


I do appreciate your concern.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 7, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #252410

BOHICA, why are you repeating other people’s posts? It looks a lot like trolling. If you have something to say, use your own words, not others that are already printed in the thread.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #252418

A quick comment about race and this years democratic primary.

Indiana voted yesterday and Obama carried 91% of the black vote. Clinton was able to garner 60+% of the white vote. Exit polling data showed that 98% of blacks voted for Obama because he is black and not because of his message. The only deciding factor was race.

If white America would respond and act in the same fashion, racism cries would echo throughout the country. No one in the media is willing to address, let alone talk about it.

Another major issue, this has been going on the entire primary, is that 51% of republicans that cast their vote for Obama, in Indiana, did so for no other reason then to prevent Clinton from the becoming the nominee. They are well aware that McCain can easily win in the general election vs Obama.

The Indiana primary was decided by 2% points. Essentially splitting the delegates. Obama only won 7 counties. In the general election, the winner of each state will carry the electorate. There are not enough black voters in this country for him to be able to overcome his lack of broader appeal.

The democratic primary is coming to an end. At this point the Obama nomination is all but a forgone conclusion. All of this wrangling for the pas t 12 month, and the outcome will be the same as the last two general elections. Another four years of a republican president,

Posted by: Fritz Mortl at May 7, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #252447


clarancec: Hoovers secret files on the Great White Leaders of his time are far more interesting. Blackmailing those Great White Leaders is what kept him in his job for all of those years. Another interesting read are the files kept on old J.Edgar himself.


Posted by: jlw at May 8, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #252453

Yet another shining example of unintelligent design…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #252461

I actually agree with you on something… ;)…your last comment Rhinehold…….right on!!!!!

Posted by: janedoe at May 8, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #252479

>

What a naive wishfull thinking statement!….

Actually, if Obama (God forbid!) is elected President, the racial divide in this country will widen. His own web site states that he intends to broaden the definition and application of the racist “affirmative action”. Quite a start in “healing the racial divide”. What’s next? Reparations?

No wonder that racists and anti-Semites such as L. Farrakhan and Rev. Crazy Wright are some of his ardent supporters.

Just Say NO! to Liberals!


Posted by: Pink Floyd at May 8, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #252481

OK Pink Floyd…LET ME BE THE FIRST TO SAY, NO!

Posted by: Jim M at May 8, 2008 6:25 PM
Comment #252483

clarencec, your comment to jlw is way out of bounds of our Rules for Participation. Flame baiting is not permitted here. Observe our Rules or lose the privilege to participate here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at May 8, 2008 6:32 PM
Comment #252493

jlw, I thought some of the great white leaders were blackmailing Hoover to keep him out of their business. FDR liked him, Truman hated him, Eisenhower liked him, the Kennedys hated him, and then his buds, Johnson and Nixon came in and made him into their patron saint. I’d like to see his name removed from that building in DC.

My race is the human race. All the other distinctions are merely tribal. If you hate black Americans, you hate America. They’ve been here for long enough to be respected, regardless of any individual’s frailities.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 8, 2008 7:24 PM
Comment #252510

“My race is the human race. All the other distinctions are merely tribal. If you hate black Americans, you hate America. They’ve been here for long enough to be respected, regardless of any individual’s frailities.”


Amen ohrealy

Posted by: napajohn at May 9, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #252636

If his healing message is so powerful, why in his first book is he so race-obsessed, and why is his wife so alienated from America? It seems, like many black people, he blames white people for the failings of black Americans, finding its source in white racism. He simply wants us to heal the way he has healed himself: denigrating white America as the source of evil and embracing the rule of minorities. He identifies as black, not biracial, and America will “heal” by doing the same. Of course, this is not good news for “rich, white people” to use his pastor’s words.

Posted by: Roach at May 11, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #252991

I’am so ” Sick ” of hearing about the ” RACE “
card, till I want to ” Puke “…! You vote for
a ” President ” that will do what’s best for our
” Country “!
1. You don’t opease ” TERRORIST “!
2. Secure the ” BORDER “!
3. Enforce the rule of ” LAW “!
4. Protect the ” AMERICAN ” people!
5. Keep ” TAXE’S ” low!
6. Become ” ENERGY ” Independent!
7. Appoint,judge’s that protect the
” CONSTITUTION “!
so it’s not about ” RACE “,” CREED ” or ” COLOR “
it is about ” ISSUE’S “….!

” Liberal-Democrat’s ” just don’t “CUT”the MUSTARD…!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: j.i.m. at May 16, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #252992

To all the people who ” HATE ” this ” Great Country ” we live in, the one’s who live here
all need a one way ” Ticket “…..OUT… never to
return period…..!

Posted by: j.i.m. at May 16, 2008 9:54 PM
Post a comment