BARACK OBAMA '08

Comment by Dana on June 27, 2008 at 9:27am

Aww man...Ray, i thought you had come to the other side when I saw that you joined the Obama Group. lol! And I can think of a number of "Blacks" that I would not vote for if they were running for Pres.

Comment by Dana on June 27, 2008 at 11:19am

No Hate...only Love!

Comment by Gregory Gainer on June 29, 2008 at 11:06pm

Raymond, I don't know you but you sound like you can win the "Uncle Tom" of the Year award. Seems like you should be voting for McCain with the christain right hate speech rhetoric you have spewed out on this forum. Get a grip playa.

Comment by Kurt B. Young on June 30, 2008 at 10:33pm

Took the words out of my mouth, Greg (BTW, wassup!! Been a long time).

I thought it was funny, Raymond, how you accuse Obama supporters of simply voting for him because he is Black (which is a sophomoric claim by itself) then turn around and regurgitate simplistic fox news/rush limbaugh rhetoric as if you were actually reading the talking points while you were typing. Don't know for sure but just sayin'.

In other words, raise the dialog, Brah. It's the least you can do.

Comment by Kurt B. Young on July 1, 2008 at 4:43pm

Raymond, I guess Greg caused you to change up with a few posts to convince us that you are a serious thinker raising some important questions about Obama. Based on some of this non-sense listed below, I don’t by it. Let's take a look:

Your claim: “He sounds a lot like Jimmy Carter and Lord knows we don't need to revisit that era.”

The talking points?:

Fox News:
“McCain: Obama=Carter second term”
The conservative American Thinker March edition:
“The New Jimmy Carter”
The ULTRA conservative blob:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/01/obama_the_black.php
(this is the type of company you keep)

Of course there are some similarities. The cog in Carter’s campaign was that he was an “outsider” who would reform government; establish fiscal responsibility and a new era of honesty in government (post-Nixon). Likewise, Obama has taken some of the same positions. However, Clinton had more profound similarities with Carter than Barak! I guess, based on your logic, the country should have ended up the same during the Clinton era as it did during Carter’s, which is clearly wrong. Similarities in campaigns tell us nothing about similarities in administrations. This is what I meant by simplistic (Perhaps what you meant to say was that Carter and Obama are similar in that, if Barak Obama is elected, they both followed administrations that were corrupt with international crises and looming economic downturns).

Regarding the Black community, some would argue that Carter supported programs that benefited residents in BCs. Have you heard Barak say he supports programs like those Carter implemented?

Your claim: “Obama is also a pacifist and the world is way to dangerous for a president unwilling to pull the trigger on the bad guys BEFORE they strike.”

This is an easy one:

Rush Limbaugh: “Obama Vows to Disarm America”
“Look, it's patently obviously who th....”

In fact, one of my concerns is that Barak tends to blur the line between he and the GWB, particularly in terms of his position of Pakistan, Iran and Palestine. Perhaps this is because he is trying to grab the center as the election nears. But pacifist??? Just stop it!

Your claim: “He is unsuitable for the office of Commander In Chief. The military brass does not trust him and for good reason.”

Based on what evidence? Show us the poll of all military officers showing distrust for Barak? I’d bet it exist only in your mind. And don’t tell me you know something we don’t.

Your claim: “He criticizes the soldiers and the effort in Iraq”

MM exposed Sean Hannity of fox news on this talking point a whole year ago:
“But retreating is one thing; bashing America is another. Earlier t...

So now, criticizing the flawed policies of a flawed president who has and continues to misuse the troops is exactly the same as criticizing the troops??? Again, sophomoric. This must also mean that there were a lot of your friends criticizing the troops when they criticized Clinton’s use of US forces in the Balkans? I guess you defended Clinton then, huh.

Your claim: “Anyone ever met a poor person who gave them a job or career?”

No links here but this is really silly. You mentioned Black communities. You should know then that Black folk in America come from a tradition of creating economic progress out of the hard realities of poverty. In fact the early development of a black economic base HAD TO depend the meager resources in and of the black community since all we had was each other and most of us were broke. Yes, careers were made out of the economic struggles of poor black folk.

Your claim: “He is anti-Second Amendment.”

Fox news on the NRA’s position on Obama:

Is it possible for one to support the 2nd AND want to curb the flow of guns into irresponsible or criminal hands? I say yes.

Let me address these together:

Your claim: “He has been endorsed by every terrorist group and islamofascist entity around the globe. His status as a 'natural born citizen' is in question. His middle name is Hussein. Not a comfortable name for an AMERICAN president.”

Fox news again:
“A Hamas problem for Obama?”
This is yet another example of seeing the world simplistically. In my mind, that fact that America’s enemies dislike GWB so much that they would prefer to interact with the alternative is a matter of fact and commonplace in world politics. Also, if you are going to invoke this talking point, I wish you would also mention that Hamas withdrew its comments on Barak after his AIPAC speech. I had some major problems with that speech because I saw it as pandering. But I don't know and I don't think you do either. The best we can do is tell the whole story.

Finally, this notion about the Brotha’s name is just ridiculous. But, if you insist, I’ll indulge. Give me an intelligent candidate with the middle name “Hussein” over failed presidents with the last name “Bush” any day. Maybe you were just joking when you indicated you did not care for Carter and Clinton since nothing is more AMERICAN than James EARL Carter and William JEFFERSON Clinton.

I can go on and on with this but its beside the point. I don't know you and can't say that these are your original observations or that you parrot what you hear. All I'm saying is that there is enough to agree/disagree on without the talking points.

Comment by Kurt B. Young on July 1, 2008 at 5:42pm

“You too by using that term understand the idiocy behind doing such and certainly you cannot deny the FACT that nearly 90% of the entire Black electorate which has until now been fiercely yet blindly loyal to "the first black president" and his gal. That is of course until Obama picked up steam. So sir, please explain to us all how you would characterize such a monumental shift when both Democrat candidates are cut from the same cloth?”

…Okay, I will.

Historically, the African American vote has been one of the most consistently informed vote in the American body politic. We have always voted in ways that reflect our interests. While I do agree that the Democratic Party has taken that vote for granted, that does not change the fact that the policies democratic candidates tend to champion are the ones we tend to feel passionate about. When the Republican Party was “The Party of Lincoln”, we voted republican. When they championed the Reconstruction cause, we were squarely in that camp. However, when they began to betray that vote in the Hayes-Tilden Compromise, we began to look elsewhere. When FDR established “New Deal” policies that would alleviate some of our post-great depression economic suffering, we supported him. When he signed executive order 8802 and Truman and Johnson began to speak to the socio-economic concerns we already had and understood, we moved firmly in the democratic camp.

This helps to explain the support for Clinton. (BTW, I’m with you on rejecting the Bill Clinton/“first black president” garbage!) The shift was a product of two factors: 1) in many ways Hillary moved too far to the center, as did her husband. Without a viable alternative, many black voters stayed with the known commodity. Nevertheless, there was always a concern with HC, particularly on Iraq. 2) Once Barak had the opportunity to present his platform, people listened, considered their options and decided to support him. Obama was able to distinguish himself from HC and thus defeat her in the primaries (notwithstanding your belief that they have the same views). If you study Barak’s platform, you will see that it speaks to the black electorate without saying so overtly. Thus, he gets tremendous support based on these considerations.

Finally, I can’t say if this applies to ALL Black supporters of Barak but neither can you prove otherwise. Besides, I never hear people who insult the Black voter as being unsophisticated express any outrage at the millions of white voters who select candidates along straight party lines. And where is your outrage at those who voted against their own best interests in the last two elections? Indeed, voting the party line has been around before we were able to vote. Now all of a sudden it’s the Black voter who’s guilty of just voting because…. To the contrary, I would say that it the Black vote has always been calculating. It had to in order to generate political freedoms from the electoral process.


It’s one thing to have a problem with such a large support from the black community to any one candidate. I share the concern here. However, citing the “FACT” that there is large support for a candidate is not the same as assuming you know why they do so! Perhaps instead of condescendingly trying to tell us why Black folk actually support Barak, perhaps you should speak for yourself.

(Please forgive the length, everyone).

Comment by Kurt B. Young on July 2, 2008 at 10:51pm

Ray,

No insult taken, no apology necessary.

I debate these issues out of an unapologetic love for blackness and a willingness to defend it... in all its imperfections..

Peace, Brah.

Comment by Raymond D. Sweet on July 21, 2008 at 12:54am

Ray I love you and all, but this is over the top. I am a registered republican (actually I changed parties to help Barack out), but this is craziness that you talk. Steve Harvey nor Tom Joyner are political people they are morning personalities. So, you cannot begin to compare them to those racists bafoons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (or is it alan cant remember) who gets sexually excited when Barack's name is mentioned. And the race baiter of the year Michael Savage are you kidding me. How could any one be on the same side as the guy who failed to vote for the MLK, Jr. Holiday. You need to read your history as to why the negro left the republican party. Missippi ring a bell. So, instead of going right down the side of the conservative (whatever that means), Ray, stand on the side of what is right. Ok. that was lame, but this is craziness.

Comment by Raymond D. Sweet on July 21, 2008 at 1:05am

Kurt B that had to hurt. No comment no comment. You should see some of the stuff on youtube. It is like people are getting a check for repeating foolishness.

Comment by Karen Gordon on July 21, 2008 at 4:47pm

Beside the fact that I will most likey never vote again....?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page