PDA

View Full Version : "No He Can't" (Barack Obama)


revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 11:50 AM
This is interesting.

ANNE WORTHAM

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association.
She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.
In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.
Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.
She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.

Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.
This article she wrote is well worth reading.


Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America ..

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley.. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.

There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Dino 6 Rings
06-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Very good read. Can't believe she wrote in Ron Paul.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 12:05 PM
Libertarianism knows no racial bounds...

Dino 6 Rings
06-22-2009, 12:07 PM
Libertarianism knows no racial bounds...

Ron Paul has said some very racist things in his past. I would love to support the guy but he draws all the whackos from all over the place, like the 9/11 truthers, support Ron Paul...that's just nutty stuff.

Now, if Ron Paul comes out and demands something be done about all the Zombies! I'd be his biggest supporter.

Indo
06-22-2009, 12:09 PM
It always is puzzling to me that Intelligent people like this, those that "get it", aren't the ones running this country.

Godfather
06-22-2009, 12:28 PM
I wouldn't call her someone who "gets it". Not when she parroted this intellectually dishonest talking point:

"I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them"

The Democratic candidate always receives 90% of the black vote, but poeple suddenly start crying racism as soon as that candidate happens to be black. You might have a point if you're talking about the small percentage who usually vote Republican and switched for Obama, but that's a very small number of people.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 12:41 PM
It was 88% to 11% Bush Kerry for blacks in 2004.
90% to 9% Bush Gore in 2000
95% to 5% Obama McCain in 2008

Most importantly, though, black voter turnout was significantly increased, and there's, um, you know, probably really only ONE reason for that. 48% of all primary voters in SC were black. Georgia increased it's black voter turnout by 85% from 2004.

"intellectually dishonest" probably isn't the right terminology here...and, besides, I though it was impossible for black people to be racist?

fansince'76
06-22-2009, 12:44 PM
I wouldn't call her someone who "gets it". Not when she parroted this intellectually dishonest talking point:

"I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them"

The Democratic candidate always receives 90% of the black vote, but poeple suddenly start crying racism as soon as that candidate happens to be black. You might have a point if you're talking about the small percentage who usually vote Republican and switched for Obama, but that's a very small number of people.

It's also intellectually dishonest to say that Obama didn't get a TON of votes simply on the grounds of his being black, though. With his qualifications (or lack thereof), I sincerely doubt he would have made it out of the primaries if he were white.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 12:58 PM
This subject will naturally put black racists and so called "progressive whites" on a really uncomfortable slippery slope. On one hand, this is a great victory for "the cause", on the other it's highly ironic that Obama's race is the primary reason for his victory. It's almost contradictory, and liberals are always uncomfortable when confronted with their own contradictions. It's not all that different than the silence we're greeted with when the issue of Obama adopting scores of "failed Bush policies" comes up. What can they say that won't ring false or be highly hypocritical? That's why the transparent deflection tactics are always the only defense they can muster.

If this article was written by a white person, they'd have been publicly harangued and castigated for being, well, racist. It's an interesting dichotomy for sure, and why I posted this up here in the first place...

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 01:04 PM
I hope reading articles like this procures you some sense of superiority. This bitterness and constant belittling of the masses is ironically the most undemocratic sentiment this country has seen so far. Don't believe that the majority of the people know what's best for their families and themselves? Then move to a country like Iran where a supreme leader picks the president for the people! But, please, spare us these whiny, monotonous, poetic speeches.

Dino 6 Rings
06-22-2009, 01:08 PM
I feel superior all the time anyway just because when I look in the mirror each morning I realize all over again how freaking Awesome I really am!!!

Its not easy being super awesome every day. But yeah, it makes me feel really good.

Where's the birth certificate anyway, is this B.O. guy even a citizen?

:sly::poke:

JEFF4i
06-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Wow, this woman says a whole lot without saying a damn thing.

Bravo, really, it is impressive.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 01:22 PM
I hope reading articles like this procures you some sense of superiority. This bitterness and constant belittling of the masses is ironically the most undemocratic sentiment this country has seen so far. Don't believe that the majority of the people know what's best for their families and themselves? Then move to a country like Iran where a supreme leader picks the president for the people! But, please, spare us these whiny, monotonous, poetic speeches.

That white guilt's a killer...

I ask some other questions: Where is the change? What's the REAL reason this man was elected? Why is it whiny and monotonous to call attention to the giant white elephant in the room? And why can't we have honest and open discussion about it?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
06-22-2009, 01:22 PM
Where's the birth certificate anyway, is this B.O. guy even a citizen?

:sly::poke:

Seriously, how many times does he have to show you guys this? I mean, it is obviously an official document.
http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate.jpg

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 01:25 PM
Wow, this woman says a whole lot without saying a damn thing.

Bravo, really, it is impressive.

She seems properly respectable, educated, and intelligent. I'm sorry you don't see the value in her sentiment. But I don't think simply dismissing the author by disparaging her article is going to work this time...

JEFF4i
06-22-2009, 01:33 PM
She seems properly respectable, educated, and intelligent. I'm sorry you don't see the value in her sentiment. But I don't think simply dismissing the author by disparaging her article is going to work this time...

She possesses absolutely no proof or substantiating evidence for any of her statements. They are only that, statements.

Toss it in the bin with everything else, nothing distinguishing or respectable about this piece.

JEFF4i
06-22-2009, 01:37 PM
Oh, and FYI, when I heard this useless drivvel over Former President Bush, I dismissed that too.

Spare me, I'd like to see something conclusive, some form of casaul evidence why people make statements that they do. This speech may be part of something larger that she has written about that provides logical conclusions with some form of evidence, but by itself, is useless.

GBMelBlount
06-22-2009, 01:41 PM
I hope reading articles like this procures you some sense of superiority. This bitterness and constant belittling of the masses is ironically the most undemocratic sentiment this country has seen so far. Don't believe that the majority of the people know what's best for their families and themselves? Then move to a country like Iran where a supreme leader picks the president for the people! But, please, spare us these whiny, monotonous, poetic speeches.

Stop rambling and make a point, please.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 01:46 PM
She possesses absolutely no proof or substantiating evidence for any of her statements. They are only that, statements.

Toss it in the bin with everything else, nothing distinguishing or respectable about this piece.

So, let's discuss her statements...I think they are interesting, and she brings up some salient points about the direction this country may be heading in, the kind of training and education the people Obama has elevated to leadership levels, the kind of government we can expect from such people, and she's not shying away from discussing race.

I like that option better than just saying "I disagree, so nothing to see here".

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 01:51 PM
That white guilt's a killer...

I ask some other questions: Where is the change? What's the REAL reason this man was elected? Why is it whiny and monotonous to call attention to the giant white elephant in the room? And why can't we have honest and open discussion about it?

Hopefully, I can supply some answers.

1) Where is the change? The change is everywhere. If there was no change you wouldn't be complaining about it.

2) What's the REAL reason this man was elected? One, he's a democrat, and based on Bush's approval ratings, people were tired of the GOP.
Two, he inspired the youth of America with new ideas and outlooks on global affairs, while McCain and Palin preached a return to traditional strategies that had worked in the past, but failed to rally enough support.
Three, he was black (OMG I said it) and the idea of the nations first nonwhite president seemed long overdue for some voters, the same way McCain's VP choice rallied many disgruntled Hillary voters. It would be na´ve to deny that Obama' racial characteristics did not influence some voters, but also na´ve and hypocritical to deny that Romney's Mormon beliefs did not deter some voters in the primaries, even though this nation calls for a clear separation of church and state.

American elections are always close, so believing that Obama's victory is somehow astonishing seems a tad arrogant to me.

fansince'76
06-22-2009, 02:06 PM
1) Where is the change? The change is everywhere. If there was no change you wouldn't be complaining about it.


Gitmo closed?

Troops home from Iraq?

"Illlegal and unconstitutional" Bush warrantless wiretapping program ended?

Yeah, change is everywhere, alright. Calling out the hypocrisy of adopting en masse the so-called "failed Bush policies" he constantly denounced and spent an entire campaign railing against, a stance that largely got him elected, is a far cry from "complaining about change." People aren't complaining about "change" (because up to now, it's been nonexistent), people are complaining about the hypocrisy of the new administration thus far and the sheeple that put him in office who continue to give him a pass for perpetuating the same policies they absolutely crucified Bush for.

JEFF4i
06-22-2009, 02:09 PM
So, let's discuss her statements...I think they are interesting, and she brings up some salient points about the direction this country may be heading in, the kind of training and education the people Obama has elevated to leadership levels, the kind of government we can expect from such people, and she's not shying away from discussing race.

Fair enough...

"...I know about Barack Obama as a politician" I'll give her this much, he most definitely is. Even worse is that he is dangerously cunning at being a politician. She never really says much of why though, not directly, anyway.

"...to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century" This I also agree with, in part. We've been a long ways from capitalism for quite some time, the free market just isn't much free anymore. Not sure that I like it or don't like it, but, that's a matter for ideals. However, she makes a subtle slight at the lack of a "free" market and by consequence free people by addressing it as serfdom.

"I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them." This is really where she lost me. I admit, many people did vote for President Obama purely because of race. However, her statement is said in a way such that she makes it sound that the progressive whites and 94% of black voted for Obama mostly, or purely because of race. This is a completely unfair assertion, logical fallacy, and just plain absurd. Some did, but when the average is 88-92% of Black Americans vote Democrat even when it has historically been a White candidate, her statement just doesn't hold water. It is policy, it is a pro-affirmitative action policy. To counter -and I admit I have little evidence here beyond an educated guess-, if it were Colin Powell running as a Republican, I doubt he'd garner 94% of the Black vote.

I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," Well, we've seen that "trickle-down" theory has little supportive evidence. This has its own reasons, I will concede, but the alternative isn't necessarily wrong. I don't agree with the "bottom up" totally, but she offers absolutely no reason for why it wouldn't. She says she doesn't believe in it and passes it off as reason. Reason is substantiated by evidence.

I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth. Again, what has he directly destroyed? Control of GM is an interesting thing, and I'm reserving my opinion on it for a few years. Needless to say it might be a great thing, but it could also be horrid, we'll have to see how it pans out. I'd counter her statement by asking what proof she has that the most productive and generators of wealth have done beyond simple employment to increase the standard of living anyway. Employment is key, however, notoriously the "most productive" agencies in this nation -i.e. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.-, provide a majority standard of living for the lower economic sectors of society, baggers, stockers, and so forth.

I'd prefer not speak of GM because frankly, it is an awful instance. The dealerships were profitable, GM, as a whole, was not.


So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person. This entire paragraph is nothing more than pointless analogy and rhetoric offering little in the way of intellectual discussion.

But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good. The American Dream is still alive, not necessarily as healthy as it might have once been, but alive. President Obama hasn't killed it, and he never will, because it is an underlying conscience to our nation. Many accused President Bush of trying to kill the American Dream with an economic focus on elitism. Again, all this is, is partisan blather.

I hate saying it, but frankly, Rush, O'Reilly, and the like bring more to the table than this piece does. At very least they bring along more than rhetoric and analogy to enforce their points.

MACH1
06-22-2009, 02:09 PM
View Post
1) Where is the change? The change is everywhere. If there was no change you wouldn't be complaining about it.

That's all that will be left of your paycheck after you get done paying for everything obaaama has done.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 02:15 PM
American elections are always close, so believing that Obama's victory is somehow astonishing seems a tad arrogant to me.

He DID outspend his opponent as much as 8-1 in some key battleground states, so there IS that.

Obama's victory is also in no way astonishing. In fact I find it to be quite pedestrian when viewed in context.

Can you post without taking a not-so-subtle shot at me?

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 02:47 PM
Gitmo closed?

Troops home from Iraq?

"Illlegal and unconstitutional" Bush warrantless wiretapping program ended?

Yeah, change is everywhere, alright. Calling out the hypocrisy of adopting en masse the so-called "failed Bush policies" he constantly denounced and spent an entire campaign railing against, a stance that largely got him elected, is a far cry from "complaining about change." People aren't complaining about "change" (because up to now, it's been nonexistent), people are complaining about the hypocrisy of the new administration thus far and the sheeple that put him in office who continue to give him a pass for perpetuating the same policies they absolutely crucified Bush for.

First of all, I voted for Bush in 2004. I know he has been unfairly diminished by the media and blamed for everything from the stock market to hurricanes. However, history will be kinder to Bush, as soon as people start to wonder why they hated him so much. In that sense, I can see why that would frustrate you.

I like Obama's character much more than I liked his campaign. He's not the first politician to decorate his platform with impossible promises (Bush said we were going to Mars), but give Obama credit for not ignoring the importance of many of Bush's polices (even the unpopular ones) when he took office. He's not an idealist. He's very pragmatic. And he's only squirming to relocate the Gitmo detainees to appease the rainbow shirts.

I've seen change in issues like Iran. He's not giving the regime any ammo by interfering. He's doing the smart thing, instead of cheaply trying to bolster his reputation with familiar tough rhetoric. I don't think McCain would have done the same. I'm tired of America helping nations that will later blame us for their problems.

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 02:54 PM
This is tired. He lied to get elected. He's kowtowing to the banks and corporations. He's backtracked and flip-flopped on myriad campaign promises. He'll fail on healthcare because he lacks the political will to actually fight it out in the trenches (why is he trying to be bipartisan when he doesn't need to be?). He'll be another tax and spender, most likely a one-termer. He's more of the same, and that's in direct contrast to the image he portrayed as a candidate.

He had a chance to actually be something new under the sun, but other than taking advantage of technology and forgoing campaign matches (which allowed him to outspend his opponent), he's pretty much just Bill Clinton-lite, with a dash of far left liberalism, which won't wash in a center-right country and he knows it.

But he has rock star charisma, and that's enough for a lot of people in this country...

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 02:55 PM
Can you post without taking a not-so-subtle shot at me?

Okay, then I won't be so subtle.

I think it is arrogant to label people who disagree with you politically as somehow lacking in judgment. :noidea:

revefsreleets
06-22-2009, 03:06 PM
Okay, then I won't be so subtle.

I think it is arrogant to label people who disagree with you politically as somehow lacking in judgment. :noidea:

Don't get me wrong...your insults mean less than nothing to me. However I'm always fascinated by the tactic of trying to dress me down without actually attacking my argument (which I'm not even sure you are understanding here).

Do you actually think that Barrack Obama makes it past the first 6 weeks of the primaries if he was white?

Preacher
06-22-2009, 03:53 PM
I hope reading articles like this procures you some sense of superiority. This bitterness and constant belittling of the masses is ironically the most undemocratic sentiment this country has seen so far. Don't believe that the majority of the people know what's best for their families and themselves? Then move to a country like Iran where a supreme leader picks the president for the people! But, please, spare us these whiny, monotonous, poetic speeches.

Why? We had to suffer through them for eight years. Are you saying that you wish we didn't have the same freedom speech that you had?

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 05:15 PM
Don't get me wrong...your insults mean less than nothing to me. However I'm always fascinated by the tactic of trying to dress me down without actually attacking my argument (which I'm not even sure you are understanding here).

Do you actually think that Barrack Obama makes it past the first 6 weeks of the primaries if he was white?

Yes. I do. He gave an incredible speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I do not, however, think he would have beaten Clinton had he been white.

Do I think McCain would have selected Palin had she been a man? -No

Do I think Romney would have gotten the Republican nomination had he not been a Mormon? -Yes

And I'm not "dressing you down".

beSteelmyheart
06-22-2009, 06:02 PM
This is tired. He lied to get elected. He's kowtowing to the banks and corporations. He's backtracked and flip-flopped on myriad campaign promises. He'll fail on healthcare because he lacks the political will to actually fight it out in the trenches (why is he trying to be bipartisan when he doesn't need to be?). He'll be another tax and spender, most likely a one-termer. He's more of the same, and that's in direct contrast to the image he portrayed as a candidate.

He had a chance to actually be something new under the sun, but other than taking advantage of technology and forgoing campaign matches (which allowed him to outspend his opponent), he's pretty much just Bill Clinton-lite, with a dash of far left liberalism, which won't wash in a center-right country and he knows it.

But he has rock star charisma, and that's enough for a lot of people in this country...

They all lie to get elected. From the local to the state to the federal level & I have stopped kidding myself into believing otherwise. They all make promises they can't keep, they all promise too much & they all take money from corporations & lobbyists.

silver & black
06-22-2009, 06:16 PM
She possesses absolutely no proof or substantiating evidence for any of her statements. They are only that, statements.

Toss it in the bin with everything else, nothing distinguishing or respectable about this piece.


Since when does a person's opinion have to be backed up with facts or substantiated?

HometownGal
06-22-2009, 06:32 PM
Hopefully, I can supply some answers.

1) Where is the change? There is and will be more "change" in the government's pockets and less in our pockets than under any other administration in HISTORY.

2) What's the REAL reason this man was elected? One, he's a Democrat, and with the assistance of ACORN and the Democratic Party, unfairly blackballed Senator McCain and witch-hunted Sarah Palin.

Two, he served up heapin' helpins of bullshit creme pie that the nation's youth sucked up as though it was their last meal.

Three, he IS black and the idea of the nations first nonwhite president seemed long overdue for black voters

Four, he denounced just about every policy of the prior Administration and proposed policies of Senator McCain. (and lo and behold - turned around and continued many of those same policies.)



There - fixed that for ya. :thumbsup:

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 07:33 PM
We've got a great vibe going here.

Texasteel
06-22-2009, 07:51 PM
Okay, then I won't be so subtle.

I think it is arrogant to label people who disagree with you politically as somehow lacking in judgment. :noidea:

You mean, like you did with your first post.

Godfather
06-22-2009, 08:05 PM
Yes. I do. He gave an incredible speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I do not, however, think he would have beaten Clinton had he been white

Actually, I wouldn't even go that far. The antiwar left was looking for anyone but Hillary. Where were they going to go? Dodd? Biden? Maybe Edwards but he was a retread. Obama just needed enough charisma to win Iowa and establish himself as the alternative to Hillary. Once he did that, he had the antiwar left--and the mountain west (where the Clintons are hated) in his pocket. If it were just about race, Sharpton would have gotten a lot more black support in 2004, Steele would be the Senator from Maryland, Lynn Swann would be governor of Pennsylvania, etc.

I'm also not convinced being Mormon is what did Romney in. Huckabee still would have siphoned off the evangelical votes and given J-Mac a plurality.

JEFF4i
06-22-2009, 08:51 PM
Since when does a person's opinion have to be backed up with facts or substantiated?

This statement makes me a sad, sad man.

silver & black
06-22-2009, 09:14 PM
[QUOTE=JEFF4i;618964]This statement makes me a sad, sad man.[/QUOTE

Doesn't take much,huh?

The Patriot
06-22-2009, 09:59 PM
This statement makes me a sad, sad man.

:chuckle:

JEFF4i
06-23-2009, 12:00 AM
This statement makes me a sad, sad man.

Doesn't take much,huh?

:noidea:

Honestly, opinions on say....cookies, I can live without supporting evidence. But on issues of global intrigue (ha, wanted to use that all day) it is not only scholarly -which, quite honestly, should be expected of someone of her stature-, but decent to provide reasoning and proof to substantiate your claims. Otherwise, well, as I said, they are pointless.

silver & black
06-23-2009, 06:47 AM
:noidea:

Honestly, opinions on say....cookies, I can live without supporting evidence. But on issues of global intrigue (ha, wanted to use that all day) it is not only scholarly -which, quite honestly, should be expected of someone of her stature-, but decent to provide reasoning and proof to substantiate your claims. Otherwise, well, as I said, they are pointless.

After re-reading this thread, I feel I owe you somewhat of an apology. I was very irritated yesterday when I got on here, and I should have kept my mouth shut untill I calmed down.

I frequent a few different message boards, for the sole purpose of entertainment. One of my pet peeves is the constant harping about facts and substantiation and proof about every little thing be discussed. It seems no one can have an opinion, just because it's their opinion, without having to spend time Googling up percentages, facts, history, etc.... If I have to do that every time I give an opinion, it enters the realm of arguing and fighting, and then it becomes a debate contest where there has to be a winner... and there never is. It ceases to be fun and entertaining, at that point.

Having said that, I agree that some things should be substantiated. The article being discussed in this thread probably falls into that catagory.

I tend to agree with revs on this one, but I respect everyone's opinion.

Please accept my apology for running off at the mouth before better judgement could take over.

revefsreleets
06-23-2009, 08:51 AM
I think one of the KEY sentiments she got across quite eloquently was that her sense of self-worth was in no way affected just because a black man was elected President. She said many interesting things, but that one stuck with me the most.

As far as Obama making it out of the primaries, no, no way he makes it as say, a white protestant. Probably as a Latino man, and definitely as a woman, but, to deny that he was elevated to the position he has attained in spite of his race, and not because of it, is quite naive. Bringing up Palin is both irrelevant and not all that far off the whole "Bu..bu..bu...Bush" thing.

It actually makes me proud of my country that we elected a black man, and sad at the same time that we elected a black man pretty much simply based on the fact that he was black. There were many eloquent speakers on both sides of the aisle, and that is NOT an adequate reason to elect a man president. I think I share that sentiment with the author...

SteelersinCA
06-23-2009, 03:04 PM
After re-reading this thread, I feel I owe you somewhat of an apology. I was very irritated yesterday when I got on here, and I should have kept my mouth shut untill I calmed down.

I frequent a few different message boards, for the sole purpose of entertainment. One of my pet peeves is the constant harping about facts and substantiation and proof about every little thing be discussed. It seems no one can have an opinion, just because it's their opinion, without having to spend time Googling up percentages, facts, history, etc.... If I have to do that every time I give an opinion, it enters the realm of arguing and fighting, and then it becomes a debate contest where there has to be a winner... and there never is. It ceases to be fun and entertaining, at that point.

Having said that, I agree that some things should be substantiated. The article being discussed in this thread probably falls into that catagory.

I tend to agree with revs on this one, but I respect everyone's opinion.

Please accept my apology for running off at the mouth before better judgement could take over.

Good point. Very astute post even if you are a Raiders fans. :drink:

JEFF4i
06-23-2009, 08:16 PM
After re-reading this thread, I feel I owe you somewhat of an apology. I was very irritated yesterday when I got on here, and I should have kept my mouth shut untill I calmed down.

I frequent a few different message boards, for the sole purpose of entertainment. One of my pet peeves is the constant harping about facts and substantiation and proof about every little thing be discussed. It seems no one can have an opinion, just because it's their opinion, without having to spend time Googling up percentages, facts, history, etc.... If I have to do that every time I give an opinion, it enters the realm of arguing and fighting, and then it becomes a debate contest where there has to be a winner... and there never is. It ceases to be fun and entertaining, at that point.

Having said that, I agree that some things should be substantiated. The article being discussed in this thread probably falls into that catagory.

I tend to agree with revs on this one, but I respect everyone's opinion.

Please accept my apology for running off at the mouth before better judgement could take over.

No need to offer one. :thumbsup: I do tend to agree, people are free to their opinion and it is a beautiful thing that they can be. I just sometimes like a little meat to the potatoes, especially from someone of her stature.


I think one of the KEY sentiments she got across quite eloquently was that her sense of self-worth was in no way affected just because a black man was elected President. She said many interesting things, but that one stuck with me the most.

As far as Obama making it out of the primaries, no, no way he makes it as say, a white protestant. Probably as a Latino man, and definitely as a woman, but, to deny that he was elevated to the position he has attained in spite of his race, and not because of it, is quite naive. Bringing up Palin is both irrelevant and not all that far off the whole "Bu..bu..bu...Bush" thing.

It actually makes me proud of my country that we elected a black man, and sad at the same time that we elected a black man pretty much simply based on the fact that he was black. There were many eloquent speakers on both sides of the aisle, and that is NOT an adequate reason to elect a man president. I think I share that sentiment with the author...


Which I should have mentioned. I do respect her for showing that diversity is far deeper than the color of one's skin.

revefsreleets
06-24-2009, 09:09 AM
It may not seem like much, but I think it's almost akin to being a black person and stating that they know OJ was really guilty.

cubanstogie
06-29-2009, 09:08 PM
It may not seem like much, but I think it's almost akin to being a black person and stating that they know OJ was really guilty.

are there any who do?

revefsreleets
06-30-2009, 09:14 AM
are there any who do?

Patrice Oneal (I know, sounds like an Irish woman, but is really a black man) is very open and honest about these things in his stand-up. He admits OJ was guilty and that most black people know it, but feel like the verdict struck a blow in their ongoing battles in the legal system.