Obama

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:11 pm

I watched Rev. Wright for 10 mins last night. That is more
that I managed to do before. It was only 1 minute before.
Perhaps I am getting used to him (?!)

However, what stands out in my mind is Wright's promise (Threat?)
that he will be "after Obama" when he becomes President. He
told him so a year ago, so he claims.

This to me means only one thing. Obama better do what Rev. Wright tells him to do or ELSE. In any case, I can see a civil war in the USA if
Obama does not win the Presidency. I think Rev. Wright will
fuel resentment among the Blacks until and after the elections.
It seems he considers it his divine right. I am sorry to see this political circus taking place in America.

Agnes.

DavidRoss
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:05 am
Location: Northern California

Post by DavidRoss » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:57 pm

Why is Reverend Wright trying to sabotage Obama's shot at the Presidency? Has he been paid off by the Clintons? Or is he just plain stupid?
"Most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ~Leo Tolstoy

"It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character." ~Dale Turner

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." ~Albert Einstein
"Truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it; but, in the end, there it is." ~Winston Churchill

Image

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:37 pm

Agnes,

You're very remote from America in more than miles. Wright is an extremist who can whip up a good sermon but has little broad following. We're not going to have another civil war and presidents can ignore anyone like him. Whether the media will is another matter. Generally, this kind of kook has a short shelf life - we'll see.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:42 pm

No, we're not going to have a Civil War, but we may have some backlash, possibly in the form of street riots; especially if the Democratic superdelegates deny him the nomination.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Modernistfan
Posts: 1725
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:23 pm

Post by Modernistfan » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:06 pm

Of course, Rev. Wright is basically a kook, but what this episode reveals is something that is almost never discussed in American political discourse. That something is the incredibly high degree of alienation and withdrawal among a large segment of the African-American community.

This alienation and withdrawal has many roots. One of them is definitely past governmental neglect and abuse, such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. This has made many African-Americans extremely suspicious of any governmental programs and has caused them to withdraw inward. It has also made them susceptible to rumors such as the rumor that crack cocaine was being targeted to black communities and that HIV was deliberately spread by the government in the black community. Other rumors also have a wide following; for example, in Los Angeles, where a large number of Latinos have moved into formerly nearly all-black areas in South Los Angeles, there is a widespread belief that these Latinos have access to secret government funds to purchase housing, funds that are withheld from blacks.

Another is the collapse of the American industrial economy. This has not only deprived many blacks of good-paying jobs that did not need more than a high school education (and in many cases not even that), but it also led to the weakening of integrated industrial unions, in which blacks and whites mixed freely, such as the Steel Workers and the Automobile Workers Unions.

Unfortunately, banishing Rev. Wright does little to address these sources of alienation.

greymouse
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:42 pm
Location: MI

Post by greymouse » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:04 pm

I like the answer Wright gave to the Islam question where he quoted John 10:16, "I have other sheep who are not of this fold." :)

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:15 am

Modernistfan wrote:Of course, Rev. Wright is basically a kook, but what this episode reveals is something that is almost never discussed in American political discourse. That something is the incredibly high degree of alienation and withdrawal among a large segment of the African-American community.
You must be joking, Mod. It's discussed incessantly, especially by the crackpots like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, Lee, West, Dyson, Walker, and the rest of the activists stuck in the 1960s and pedaling that very same alienation for a very handsome living.
GOTHAM BOOKS, 2006

John McWhorter's new book, Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America (Gotham Books, January 2006) was a finalist for the 37th NAACP Image Awards for Outstanding Literary Work in Non-fiction.

Four decades after the great victories of the Civil Rights movement secured equal rights for African Americans, black America is in crisis. Indeed, by most measurable standards, conditions for many blacks have grown worse since 1965: Desperate poverty cripples communities nationwide, incarceration rates have reached record highs, teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births are rampant, and educational failures are stifling achievement among the next generation. For years, prominent sociologists and pundits have blamed these problems on forces outside the black community, from lingering racism, to the explosion of the inner-city drug trade, to the erosion of the urban industrial base and the migration of middle-class blacks to the suburbs. But now, in an important and broad-ranging re-envisioning of the post-Civil Rights black American experience, acclaimed author John McWhorter tears down these theories to expose the true roots of today's crisis, and to show a new way forward.

In Winning the Race, McWhorter argues that black America's current problems began with an unintended byproduct of the Civil Rights revolution, a crippling mindset of "therapeutic alienation." This wary stance toward mainstream American culture, although it is a legacy of racism in the past, continues to hold blacks back, and McWhorter traces all the poisonous effects of this defeatist attitude. In an in-depth case study of the Indianapolis inner city, he analyzes how a vibrant black neighborhood declined into slums, despite ample work opportunities in an American urban center where manufacturing jobs were plentiful. McWhorter takes a hard look at the legacy of the Great Society social assistance programs, lamenting their teaching people to live permanently on welfare, as well as educational failures, too often occurring because of an intellectual climate in which a successful black person must be faced with charges of "acting white." He attacks the sorry state of black popular culture, where indignation for its own sake has been enshrined in everything from the halls of academia to the deleterious policy decisions of community leaders to the disaffected lyrics of hip-hop, particularly rap's glorification of irresponsibility and violence as "protest." In a stirring conclusion, McWhorter puts forth a new vision of black political and intellectual leadership, arguing that both blacks and whites must abolish the culture of victimhood, as this alone can improve the future of black America, and outlines steps that can be taken to ensure hope for the future.

Powerful and provocative, Winning the Race combines detailed research with precise argumentation to present a compelling new vision for black America.
America in Black and White:
One Nation, Indivisible
(Touchstone 1999, Simon & Schuster 1997)

by Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom

Stephan Thernstrom is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the Winthrop Professor of History at Harvard University
Abigail Thernstrom is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute

The “American Dilemma,” Gunnar Myrdal called the problem of race in his classic 1944 book. More than half a century later, race remains the issue that dwarfs all others—the problem that doesn’t get solved and won’t go away. But in the decades since Myrdal wrote, much has changed, say the authors of America in Black and White. Progress—too little acknowledged—has been heartening. Pessimists talk of the “permanence of racism,” and say that things are as bad as ever. In fact, the authors show, the status of blacks has been transformed in recent decades, and there is no going back.

America in Black and White is the first comprehensive work since Myrdal’s to look at the status of African-Americans and ask, what has happened and why? The book starts with a picture of American apartheid—back life in the South and North in the decades before World War II. That picture sets the stage for a dramatic tale of amazing change. It is often assumed that progress is both fragile and recent: a product of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and subsequent affirmative action policies. This is wrong, the authors argue. In fact, by numerous measures, the pace of change was most impressive in the years between the end of World War II and the 1970s, the start of the modern affirmative action era. Deep economic and demographic shifts, accompanied by a revolution in white racial attitudes, put African-Americans on the difficult road to equality.


The end of that road is not yet in sight, the authors acknowledge. Nevertheless, progress has been impressive. For instance, today black and white high school graduation rates are identical, and black married couples earn on average only a bit less than those who are white. America is also more racially integrated than ever before. More than 70 percent of both whites and blacks now claim to have a “good friend” of the other race. Only a small fraction of blacks say they have no white neighbors. Residential segregation is down in almost every major city—a well-kept secret.

Problems remain, of course. But they will not be solved by traditional civil rights strategies, the authors argue. Affirmative action programs, for in-stance, do nothing to help the black underclass. Racial preferences cannot rescue the high school dropout who is too unskilled for the modern world of work.

Indeed, racial preferences are not a civil rights solution at all, the authors contend. Preferences themselves—not their rollback—threaten progress. Racist whites have long said to blacks, you’re defined by your color. With racial preferences black and white Americans of seeming good will have joined together in saying, we agree. It is precisely the wrong foundation on which to come together for a better future. Racial progress ultimately depends on our common understanding that we are one nation, indivisible—that we sink or swim together, that black poverty impoverishes us all, and that black alienation eat at the nation’s soul.
Modernistfan wrote:Another is the collapse of the American industrial economy.


Other groups adapted to the changing economy. Why didn't blacks? And which blacks are you talking about? Middle class blacks who understood the value of education and the means to success seemed to move right along with the whites into new knowledge worker jobs. The inner city blacks have been imprisoned in failed Democratic policies for 50 years, creating a permanent underclass. See Murray's article on the permanent underclass. It's too long to post here.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:23 am

NY Daily News
BY JOHN M. MURTAGH

Wednesday, April 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up "a gentleman named William Ayers," who "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that." Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama's answer: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George." Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn't have to rent a limo for the senior prom: The NYPD did the driving.

In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn't fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own 9-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family's life, there was never any doubt who was behind it.Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse.

But listen to Ayers interviewed in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, of all days: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire theyoung once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his "politics ofchange."

Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends' and supporters' violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country.

It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama's own beliefs, his philosophy and the direction he would take our nation.

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of hisupbringing and subsequent radicalization: "I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire."

Funny thing, Bill: One night, so did I.

John M. Murtagh is an attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies and a member of the city council in Yonkers.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:01 am

Barry wrote:No, we're not going to have a Civil War, but we may have some backlash, possibly in the form of street riots; especially if the Democratic superdelegates deny him the nomination.
*****

There will be no riots. Riots started in the past because of explosive local, neighborhood conditions, especially issues with the police. Why would anyone think any significant number of Americans, black or white or whatever, would riot over poiitics?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:38 am

Ralph wrote:
Barry wrote:No, we're not going to have a Civil War, but we may have some backlash, possibly in the form of street riots; especially if the Democratic superdelegates deny him the nomination.
*****

There will be no riots. Riots started in the past because of explosive local, neighborhood conditions, especially issues with the police. Why would anyone think any significant number of Americans, black or white or whatever, would riot over poiitics?
Not to equate the two, but the assassination of Martin Luther King was a national, political event that had devastating consequences. Of course, this is 2008, not 1968, but the Dem's denying the nomination to Obama in a smoke-filled room would also be a signficant political event. I wouldn't expect riots either, but not because that only happens when local, neighborhood conditions give rise to them.

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:20 pm

Ralph wrote:
Barry wrote:No, we're not going to have a Civil War, but we may have some backlash, possibly in the form of street riots; especially if the Democratic superdelegates deny him the nomination.
*****

There will be no riots. Riots started in the past because of explosive local, neighborhood conditions, especially issues with the police. Why would anyone think any significant number of Americans, black or white or whatever, would riot over poiitics?
I hope I'm wrong (of course; he may win and we'll never find out whether a backlash would have taken place). But you and I have a different sense of the current situation and feelings in the country.

We're breaking new ground here. We've never come close to having a black president before. Frustration can be at its most intense when one genuinely feels he or she is on the verge of reaching a cherished goal, only to have it pulled away at the last minute. Like you said, we'll see. At the very least, I think there would be protest marches. Whether they'd get a bit out of hand in some cities nobody can know at this point.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

rogch
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Tønsberg, Norway

Post by rogch » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:47 pm

The controversies over reverend Wright have reached European media too. But i have heard more about his comments about 9/11 than the comments about racial issues. As i understand it, reverend Wright thinks that the US somehow has itself to blame for 9/11. And Obama felt a need to distance himself from that statement, that is no surprise. But what about another reverend who felt that US partly had itself to blame, Jerry Falwell? Didn't he say that 9!11 was God's punishment because of too liberal policies towards homosexuals. abortion etc. And Jerry Falwell was hailed by president Bush after his death.

This makes no sense to me. How can it be unacceptable to blame US foreign policy for 9/11 and acceptable to blame parts of domestic policy? I mean, Falwell did not even mention any security aspects of these policies, he said America more or less got what it deserved from God. I am sure many Americans reacted strongly against Falwell's remarks. But it was nothing close to a political disaster for Bush to pay tribute to Falwell. It seems like Obama would be in much bigger trouble if he did not distance himself from Wright.
Roger Christensen

"Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters"
Artur Schnabel

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:00 pm

rogch wrote: ... This makes no sense to me. How can it be unacceptable to blame US foreign policy for 9/11 and acceptable to blame parts of domestic policy? I mean, Falwell did not even mention any security aspects of these policies, he said America more or less got what it deserved from God. I am sure many Americans reacted strongly against Falwell's remarks. But it was nothing close to a political disaster for Bush to pay tribute to Falwell. It seems like Obama would be in much bigger trouble if he did not distance himself from Wright.
Falwell was skewered widely by public figures and in the media for his post-9/11 comments. And while I likely don't agree with Bush's praise of him (I don't know exactly what he said), he didn't have anything like the kind of personal association with Falwell that Obama did with Wright. That's the major difference. Making a brief statement about someone after he dies isn't comparable to the kind of association Obama and Wright had IMO. Also, Bush was done running for office when Falwell died, so he had no real political consequences to worry about.

Also, when Bush visited a right-wing Christian college in '00, he took plenty of heat over it.
Last edited by Barry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:07 pm

rogch wrote:The controversies over reverend Wright have reached European media too. But i have heard more about his comments about 9/11 than the comments about racial issues. As i understand it, reverend Wright thinks that the US somehow has itself to blame for 9/11. And Obama felt a need to distance himself from that statement, that is no surprise. But what about another reverend who felt that US partly had itself to blame, Jerry Falwell? Didn't he say that 9!11 was God's punishment because of too liberal policies towards homosexuals. abortion etc. And Jerry Falwell was hailed by president Bush after his death.

This makes no sense to me. How can it be unacceptable to blame US foreign policy for 9/11 and acceptable to blame parts of domestic policy? I mean, Falwell did not even mention any security aspects of these policies, he said America more or less got what it deserved from God. I am sure many Americans reacted strongly against Falwell's remarks. But it was nothing close to a political disaster for Bush to pay tribute to Falwell. It seems like Obama would be in much bigger trouble if he did not distance himself from Wright.
Falwel's comments after 9/11 were not "acceptable". They were an embarassment to him and his church/movement. Likewise Wright's comments were an embarassment to him and his church/movement.

But Falwell was not Bush's pastor, let alone his pastor for 20 years. Also, no one knows WHAT Obama thinks or believes. Talk is very cheap, especially for one so gifted in that area as Obama, who cannot often be contradicted or constrained by a long public record.

In any event, a large part of Europe thinks that 9/11 was an explanable, if not expected, response to US policy. So it isn't clear that they diasgree with Wright. Notwithstanding the "We are all Americans" statement by Chirac the day after, much of Europe hates the US, and is prepared to think that the worst attacks on it have some explanation, if not justification. Anyone who thinks that anti-US sentiment only became prominent in Europe after Iraq, simply never read what was, in many European publications, being said about the US throughout the 1990s.

It's different to be an American, given the crucial role that the US plays in maintaining peace and security (such as sending troops to far Kuwait to repel Saddam's invasion), and then get told "you had it coming to you" when we are attacked. Maybe you have to be an American to know the true hurtfulness of this attitude.

Wallingford
Posts: 4525
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Brush, Colorado

Post by Wallingford » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:07 pm

Spending most of my adult years as an urbanite, I feel nowhere near the kind of fear of a civil war as the kind I get from Obama's fabled "bitter," gun-toting smalltowners and the things that they bottle up. Happens in Columbine, happens in Springfield (where I once got fired from a church job).....and just about any dinky little town where people wish the rest of the world would just leave them alone. Obama was dead-on-target. I should know: I grew up in this sort of environment.
If I could tell my mom and dad
That the things we never had
Never mattered we were always ok
Getting ready for Christmas day
--Paul Simon

Cyril Ignatius
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Cyril Ignatius » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:33 pm

I have to go with Shelby Steele's assessment that Obama is the product of the nation's racial healing rather than an agent of that racial healing.
Cyril Ignatius

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:48 pm

Wallingford wrote:Spending most of my adult years as an urbanite, I feel nowhere near the kind of fear of a civil war as the kind I get from Obama's fabled "bitter," gun-toting smalltowners and the things that they bottle up. Happens in Columbine, happens in Springfield (where I once got fired from a church job).....and just about any dinky little town where people wish the rest of the world would just leave them alone. Obama was dead-on-target. I should know: I grew up in this sort of environment.
We've had different experiences. The open hostility towards the basic things that keep an orderly socity is palpable not that far from where I live and work. Just last week I saw a bunch of girls from a charter middle school cross the street against the light, and when one of the oncoming cars that had to grind to a stop even though it had a green honked at them, these little angels stood right in front of the car, which still had a green, and let loose with a stream of profanities that would have made most prison inmates proud. You can say this is an isolated incident, and it's a bit more extreme than what I see regularly, but what I see and hear on an almost daily basis is more than enough to be extremely disturbing (and it's had a real impact on how I feel about some domestic issues). Things may not be as bad in some cities, although I know there are similar problems in others.

I know that incident isn't the same thing as rioting over politics, but it goes to the basic disconnect from American society and the rules that keep it a decent place to live that was discussed above. The occasional nut job who shoots people at a school or post office in suburban or rural America just isn't a comparable situation IMO.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu May 01, 2008 3:39 am

Ralph wrote:
Barry wrote:No, we're not going to have a Civil War, but we may have some backlash, possibly in the form of street riots; especially if the Democratic superdelegates deny him the nomination.
*****

There will be no riots. Riots started in the past because of explosive local, neighborhood conditions, especially issues with the police. Why would anyone think any significant number of Americans, black or white or whatever, would riot over poiitics?
:lol: Right! - Vinnie Barbarino

That must explain why a whole lot of local areas and neighborhoods around the nation burned the week of King's assassination.

I guess you haven't heard the folks who've been promising riots. Would ye care to be makin' a wee wager on that too?
JackC wrote:Not to equate the two, but the assassination of Martin Luther King was a national, political event that had devastating consequences. Of course, this is 2008, not 1968, but the Dem's denying the nomination to Obama in a smoke-filled room would also be a signficant political event.
It may be 2008, but the Dems with their anti-war anti-administration pacifist blather and aging boomers at the helm looking wistfully back on the day when they think they brought down another reviled Republican have spent the last two years celebrating 1968 and likening Bush to Nixon. Those people live in a time-warp and for 40 years they have cultivated an angry black ghetto dwelling underclass beholden to them.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests