ungrateful Condi vents at USA: you've got a "birth defect"

[diamond]

To be fair to diamond, he did say "some" and not most.

Some of us read what we want to see.



dbs

 

[yolland]

My bad, I misread that one.

 

[diamond]

My point in citing the Republicans in the civil rights movement of 64 is those that did that then (Republicans) are what represent the majority of the core beliefs of the GOP now, and the civil rights movement needed the help of those Republicans-and they received it because those Republicans "got it" in 1964.

Futhurmore, I will take the core beliefs of Condi and Colin over Jesse and Al.

dbs

 

[diamond]

One of my favorite Republicans of all time.

 

[diamond]

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. The Democrat Party has been the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

 

[Diemen]

Where did you lift that quote, d?

 

[diamond]

nice work eh.

sometimes i'm lazy.

 

[Irvine511]

Then you have the crowd who claims Lincoln was probably gay based on a few letters being taken out of context.

there is ample evidence that go beyond letters that demonstrate that it is quite possible that Lincoln had loving, sexual relationships with men that, today, we would understand as gay.

do we know this for certain? no. is it a historically defensible theory? absolutely.

 

[Irvine511]

My point in citing the Republicans in the civil rights movement of 64 is those that did that then (Republicans) are what represent the majority of the core beliefs of the GOP now, and the civil rights movement needed the help of those Republicans-and they received it because those Republicans "got it" in 1964.

it must be nice to walk through history and cherry pick the good parts and say that it's really representative of what you and your self-identified political party believe.

it's like when i used to think that everything that Bono said was dripping with brilliance and hidden meaning and he never wrote a bad lyric or said something silly or sang a bad song.

and then i went into 9th grade.

 

[diamond]

there is ample evidence that go beyond letters that demonstrate that it is quite possible that Lincoln had loving, sexual relationships with men that, today, we would understand as gay.

do we know this for certain? no. is it a historically defensible theory? absolutely.

see.

cause he shared a bed which was common in those days.
i sure the fellas kept a sheet between them.

and because it later wrote the friend that he shared the bed with that he had 'brotherly love' and the gay lobbyists come out.

go after a real closet gay person like tom cruise, ok?

you're so 8th grade.

geez.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

do you really want to revisit that thread?

 

[Irvine511]

Wright's approach leads and stokes the fires of racism and in my opinion puts us further back from common ground.

i do see what you are saying. i maintain that the essential message of all of them is the same, only there's an anger to Wright that i understand is unappealing to white americans.

i think Wright does himself a disservice by buying into conspiracy theories like AIDS and crack being designed to kill black people.

but i find such paranoia on equal footing with claims that hurricanes are sent by god to punish wicked people, that abortion caused 9-11, and creationism.

every then says, ah-ha, but Obama calls this man his mentor. therein lies the difference between this relationship and those of the Republican Party. but you'll seen no endorsement by Obama of such theories, yet three of the Republicans running for president proudly raised their hands saying they believed in creationism.

in fact, i find the theory that the levees were bombed as part of a larger gentrification plot more credible than creationism.

 

[diamond]

do you really want to revisit that thread?

oh
boobie.

<>

 

[maycocksean]

i do see what you are saying. i maintain that the essential message of all of them is the same, only there's an anger to Wright that i understand is unappealing to white americans.

That's just what I was going to say.

One great unwritten rule for getting along in America today--if you're black, ESPECIALLY if you're a black man--you've got to be "nice."

I promise you there won't be many white fans of a black Rush Limbaugh (unless of course they are parroting the same views as Limbaugh)--which is what I gather this Rev. Wright may be like.

 

[diamond]

good point.

dbs

 

[watergate]

I don't like Condi Rice but I liked what she said about racism because it was the truth. This might shed some light on her experience growing up in America. Its from the Guardian.

Rice, the second African-American and second female in US history to lead the state department, grew up in Alabama at the height of the civil rights movement in America. One of her childhood playmates was killed in an infamous 1963 church bombing committed by white supremacists, whom Rice has called "terrorists".
I guess that someone here believes that in order to love America you have to be a sheep and show blind obedience. The Rev Wright is in the South Side of Chicago and how many white people would even set foot in the South Side or the West Side of Chicago. Instead of showing Rev Wright's speech maybe the media should do the latest story to come out of Chicago's South Side where the Chicago cops are going to school with high school kids because the parents are too afraid to send their children to school due to gang warfare. Then maybe we can understand why Rev Wright said what he said.

 

[yolland]

That's just what I was going to say.
...
I promise you there won't be many white fans of a black Rush Limbaugh (unless of course they are parroting the same views as Limbaugh)--which is what I gather this Rev. Wright may be like.

Irvine, though, was arguing that the essential message of "all of them," i.e. "Wright, the Obamas, and Condi (and MLK and Powell)" is the same, except for the anger on Wright's part. I'm not sure that makes for the best analogy to Limbaugh (based in part on some of your own past comments about what sort of figure Limbaugh is--e.g., that he's primarily a cynical shock-jock attention-seeker, rather than a 'True Believer' in the values he nominally espouses). Could you clarify?

 

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by maycocksean

That's just what I was going to say.
...
I promise you there won't be many white fans of a black Rush Limbaugh (unless of course they are parroting the same views as Limbaugh)--which is what I gather this Rev. Wright may be like.

Irvine, though, was arguing that the essential message of "all of them," i.e. "Wright, the Obamas, and Condi (and MLK and Powell)" is the same, except for the anger on Wright's part. I'm not sure that makes for the best analogy to Limbaugh (based in part on some of your own past comments about what sort of figure Limbaugh is--e.g., that he's primarily a cynical shock-jock attention-seeker, rather than a 'True Believer' in the values he nominally espouses). Could you clarify? [/QUOTE]

No, you're right---the analogy wasn't particularly apt.

I guess I was leading off from what Irvine said to make another point, which is that many whites are often impatient with/annoyed by/put-off by black grievances when they are expressed angrily. I then took a polarizing, attention-seeking figure like Limbaugh and said that a similar person who was black would be excoriated even more than Limbaugh is (by those of us of a more liberal persuasion) by whites.

I guess I'm trying to say that a black man in America isn't "allowed" to be pissed off in quite the same way as a white man could.

And Obama, knows this by the way--it's one reason why he's doing as well as he is among white voters, IMO.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]I guess I'm trying to say that a black man in America isn't "allowed" to be pissed off in quite the same way as a white man could.[/q]



and some would say that this is a racist statement.

do you agree?

 

[maycocksean]

[q]I guess I'm trying to say that a black man in America isn't "allowed" to be pissed off in quite the same way as a white man could.[/q]



and some would say that this is a racist statement.

do you agree?

I see it more as a statement about racism in our country.

Yeah, I agree that some would view that as a racist statement though I'm not sure entirely how it could be construed as such. It's essentially a statement that racism exists in America and this one manifestation of it.

I know some people don't want to hear that, but that's the reality.

 

[Irvine511]

Colin Powell:

[q]"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

Powell added that he does not know Wright and praised Obama's response.

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama.

"It was a good (speech)," Powell said. "I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said." [/q]

 

[deep]

And I agreed with much of what he said."

interesting qualifier

 

[deep]

And Obama, knows this by the way--it's one reason why he's doing as well as he is among white voters, IMO.

I really try and stay away from the either / or way of thinking

but this does sound much like the

bargainer or challenger concept that is out there
and has been used in discussing Obama

are you familiar with the bargainer or challenger concept?

 

[Inner El Guapo]

[q]Rice hits U.S. 'birth defect'

"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

"A founding population"

Yes and the 'elephant in the room' is that probably close to 1/2 of all, if not 2/3 of European Americans who have been in the U.S. for 4 or 5 generations have Native American Blood prominently in their genealogy.

A group that was subject to essential genocide. Also, many Southern Euros or 'whites' have black Ancestry from the same period. Depending on who and where they came from obviously. If your 3rd, 4th, 5th generations are from the South, then there is a great chance. You'd be astonished at how great a chance.

Nothing excuses anything.
Point is, we are all one and the same.....not that far back.

You have 4 grandparents.
You also have 16 great great grandparents.
I'm 33 years old, my great great grandparents were born rougly a decade before the Civil War. That's 16 chances. That's where most of you are as well. It's amazing, I emplore you to check it out.

race mixing, between Whites and Indians, between Whites and blacks (in the South especially) and between Blacks and Indians was incredible.

You'd fall over if you realized. AND THAT's only in America.

To come full circle, I think race is abhorantly overated, with any perspective.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I'd encourage anyone to check out the program on PBS, African American Lives. There are parts 1 and 2.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/about.html

Basically, they trace famous black folks lineage.
I found both of them fascinating.
Henry Louis Gates runs the show.

Yeah, you might think it's boring.....but it doesn't beat Fattest Celebrity Ass or Lucky Rock Star Whore!! Give us all a break.

Good stuff y'all, check it out when you can. No joke.