Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BTW on July 10, 2008, 12:14:30 AM
-
Caught in a sound bite ( and an open microphone) , Rev Jesse Jackson says Obama is talking down black people he'd like to "cut off his nuts".
Perhaps a liberal in the bunch can rationalize this arrogant assumption of deity and power?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/politics/10jackson.html?hp
What white man could have survived suggesting cutting off Obama's "nuts" [sic] ?
Is it just me or was that part of the anatomy used to show Jackson's displeasure in Obama's youth and future? This is a power problem with Jackson, IMO. Wanna bet the propaganda media doesn't analyze it much?
here's a link to the vid
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=2160631
-
why would they? we are talking about two of the left's most treasured darlings. I doubt too much will be said in any news outlet, fox not withstanding.
-
I first heard of this on NBC news lastnight. Not surprisingly they didn't show or state what Rev. Jackson said, only reiterated his apology. How shocking...
-
LMAO
It`s all over the news.
WTG Jesse. At least he has enough sense to realize that the man does not represent the U.S. in general and certainly not the black population.
-
Jackson is a tool.
-
Jackson is a tool.
No doubt about that, but at least he is helping the cause for once. :)
-
Jackson is a tool.
Indeed, as are we all, some unwittingly.
-
you can't lose the irony in the fact that REVEREND Jackson has an actual issue with "Faith based" organizations........
pretty much confirms everything his detractors have said about him using religios titles for his own political gain......between him, sharpton, and obama's preacher......I think they disgrace MLK and all the work he did.
-
you can't loose the irony in the fact that REVEREND Jackson has an actual issue with "Faith based" organizations........
pretty much confirms everything his detractors have said about him using religios titles for his own political gain......between him, sharpton, and obama's preacher......I think they disgrace MLK and all the work he did.
I agree...the black community needs more positive role models- Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Barak Obama, for example.
-
I agree...the black community needs more positive role models- Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Barak Obama, for example.
Barak Obama! :rofl
-
I agree...the black community needs more positive role models- Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Barak Obama, for example.
2 out of 3 ain't bad.
-
you can't lose the irony in the fact that REVEREND Jackson has an actual issue with "Faith based" organizations........
pretty much confirms everything his detractors have said about him using religious titles for his own political gain......between him, sharpton, and obama's preacher......I think they disgrace MLK and all the work he did.
-
I agree...the black community needs more positive role models- Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Barak Obama, for example.
Obama used drugs...that is a positive role model?
<Placeholder for "Bush used drugs too" here>
-
I usually support the Republicans, even though I'm too young to vote, but this time:
GO BARAK OBAMA!!! :salute
-
I think it's hilarious that people keep calling Obama black.
-
I think it's hilarious that people keep calling Obama black.
I'm not sure if Molato is a politically correct term anymore? (Shrugs) He's definately got African American heritage though.
-
Who cares what colour he is?
-
Who cares what colour he is?
The white people. :D
-
Merh, hes more brown than black.
Sit him next to someone from iraq, then next to lee'ron from L.A. and im willing to bet lee'ron will be all "wtf yo, he iz not black"
-
Who cares what colour he is?
Anyone who sees he takes advantage of it.
Putting Cosby on the same level as Obama = trolling.
-
"wtf yo, he iz not black"
Wow, what a terrible impression of a stereotypical inner city black person.
-
Wow, what a terrible impression of a stereotypical inner city black person.
Indeed. More accurately it should have read, "Supwidat, yo?! He no homey, no wut I'm sayin'?!"
-
I usually support the Republicans, even though I'm too young to vote, but this time:
GO BARAK OBAMA!!! :salute
Seriousy, why would you vote for Obama?
I'm curious to see your reasoning.
-
Indeed. More accurately it should have read, "Supwidat, yo?! He no homey, no wut I'm sayin'?!"
"u iz watchu iz!"
-
The white people. :D
Yeah exactly, IE most of the people who are voting for him.
-
The tape fury is just starting. there's more to it that has not been aired........and jackon stated "cut his nuts OUT"...not off....
-
I think it's hilarious that people keep calling Obama black.
:lol I call him a Zinger.....Black on the ouside...white in the middle.
-
I missed a call or something, because I dont want to be late for the Rev Sharpton march against racism. He will be holding one, right? Just like he did Imus and countless others?
-
Obama used drugs...that is a positive role model?
so has probasbly 80% of Americans over 40 and under 60
Its just that only about 10% of that 80 are willing ot admit it.
The other 70% are lying.
-
Yanno after going over some of the posts in these threads.
Alot of you are exposing yourselves as being so far right. You starting to make Bill O Riley look like a card carrying dyed in the wool left wing radical.
LMAO
-
I thought Obama's observation had some merit, but I'm suspicious of him enough to suspect that his words were meant more for middle white America ... especially since he didn't bother to praise the many, many good black fathers and family men who do the right thing every day. In other words, I think Obama is astute and intuitive enough to know how to widen his appeal with middle America and betting that the black men he just threw under the bus will tolerate it to see a black man get over. Too bad his policies on nearly everthing are destructive to our country.
I can't understand why there isn't more talk about the upcoming war in the middle east. Maybe they would like to forget about it. McCain should be speaking realistically about it even if people don't really get it yet. It is a freight train coming down the track, and its blowing its whistle... Israel will strike Iran - maybe the US will too - this is the most immediate issue.
-
The white people. :D
You have a point. I stated it almost a year ago, America is not ready to elect a black leader.
-
I'm not sure if Molato is a politically correct term anymore? (Shrugs) He's definately got African American heritage though.
People don't use "Molato" much anymore. If there's no French heritage, its just usually "mixed." But if there is a French history "Creole" is still used.
"New Orleans ladies
Sassy style that will drive you crazy
And they hold you like the light
Hugs the wick while this candle's burning
Them Creole babies
Thin and brown and downright lazy
And they roll just like the river
A little wave will last forever" - Louisiana LeRoux
Here's a weird link to the song. I like it because it stresses the bass ( which is in itself is a beautiful melody). You can search for other versions on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUBLOSSt7I&feature=related
-
Why is race an issue ?
-
Why is race an issue ?
Because there's profit, power, and leverage at stake.
-
Because there's profit, power, and leverage at stake.
exactly, thats why Jessy Jackson did not work a single day in his life.
Great job for a piece of s* looser.
-
Indeed. More accurately it should have read, "Supwidat, yo?! He no homey, no wut I'm sayin'?!"
:rofl That one cracked me up.
-
good thing jackson didn't call obama a "nappy headed ho", jackson would have had to resign his job. :lol
-
You have a point. I stated it almost a year ago, America is not ready to elect a black leader.
People are rarely ready for anything. Hell, it's almost part of the human condition. But things happen anyway, and we get used to them. I can't think of a better way for America to get used to a black leader... than by having a black leader elected. Obama isn't the right guy, though.
Plenty of people here in NYC making a myth out of the man, deceiving themselves that the vague politician-talk coming out of his mouth is something meaningful. It's frightening.
-
Seriousy, why would you vote for Obama?
I'm curious to see your reasoning.
Why? Because there's no way I would ever vote for McCain. I actually find the prospect of that guy being President to be quite disturbing, seeing as he does not seem overly intelligent (he graduated very near the bottom of his military class), and also I dislike his foreign policy, which seems to be following that of Bush (largely because McCain supports attacking Iran). In addition to this, I have listened to Obama speaking, and whilst his economic policies may not be too sound, I think that at this time, it is far more important to have a President with a good foreign policy - i.e. one which prefers negotiating with countries such as Iran, rather than attacking them.
And just in case any rabid right-winger charges in here and screams "nnnaah you cannot reason with Arabs all they want to do is kill all Christians" (yes, I have heard that before), I am going to say that if you think that, you really need to actually visit the Middle East - I am in Bahrain now, and let me assure you that the previous comment is far from the truth.
<S>
Yossarian
-
good thing jackson didn't call obama a "nappy headed ho", jackson would have had to resign his job. :lol
Job?? When did he get a job???
-
(he graduated very near the bottom of his military class),
Yossarian
I thought I read he graduated 37th in his class at Annapolis. That does not sound very low. But I can't find where I read it so maybe your right. lol
-
Why? Because there's no way I would ever vote for McCain. I actually find the prospect of that guy being President to be quite disturbing, seeing as he does not seem overly intelligent (he graduated very near the bottom of his military class), and also I dislike his foreign policy, which seems to be following that of Bush (largely because McCain supports attacking Iran). In addition to this, I have listened to Obama speaking, and whilst his economic policies may not be too sound, I think that at this time, it is far more important to have a President with a good foreign policy - i.e. one which prefers negotiating with countries such as Iran, rather than attacking them.
And just in case any rabid right-winger charges in here and screams "nnnaah you cannot reason with Arabs all they want to do is kill all Christians" (yes, I have heard that before), I am going to say that if you think that, you really need to actually visit the Middle East - I am in Bahrain now, and let me assure you that the previous comment is far from the truth.
<S>
Yossarian
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. But I do have a couple of points I would like to make.
1. Never assume that a persons GPA or standing in their graduating class is an indication of intelligence. I personally graduated at the bottom of my class yet was offered a full scholarship to the University of Maryland because I nearly aced the SATs. Why? School was boring for me. While everyone else was plodding along studying chapter 8 of their text book, I'd already devoured the entire book and understood the principles outlined.
2. The United States does negotiate with its enemies. What seems to have been conveniently forgotten is Saddam Hussein was given a whole ten years during which he repeatedly snubbed his nose at the rest of the world. Don't forget that he purposely ordered the attack of a smaller neighboring country (Kuwaitt), thereby threatening Saudi Arabia, where you currently reside. The U.S U.N and U.A.E gave him every opportunity to comply with international weapons inspectors, but he would only allow them access when he was threatened with a military response. Also. don't ever forget that during the first Gulf War he purposely ordered the launch of SCUD missiles at targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia in an effort to swing Arab opinion in his favor.
3. As for Iran, who are currently test firing mid range missiles, I give you this quote from Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Heres' a link to the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/)
How are you supposed to negotiate with someone like this?
Let's say in the not too distant future that Iran succeeds in securing launch capable WMD's and their president threatens to launch a strike against Isreal. Who would you want as CIC? Obama? McCain?
Personally I'd prefer McCain mostly because he's already made that decision, long ago, in 1967. As a fighter/bomber pilot in Vietnam he had the final say as to who would die when he consciously chose to release his bombs over a target.
Has Obama done anything remotely like this?
4. I've had the displeasure to be involved in the initial interview of several terrorists who were detained by my unit while I was stationed in Germany in the mid seventies. I was assigned to my units G2 at the time. They attempted to gain access to the base ammo dump and were snagged by a couple of M-16 toting guards. Their whole demeanor was disturbing. They had already chosen to die, there was nothing you could do to them, nothing you could threaten them with, to get them to cooperate in a civil manner. It is not possible to negotiate with a person who has chosen that path. Negotiation involves trading. I'll give you this if you give me that. In most cases the trade involves a life, usually the terrorists life as they normally hold the hostages during a standoff. If they're prepared to to die, the only thing you can realistically do is speed them on their way.
Honestly I've never come across the comment that all Arabs want to kill Christians! Now if the comment was "All Arab terrorists want to kill Christians" Yes, I've seen that.
Carrel, I've checked and McCain graduated 884 out of 889 from his class at Annapolis in 1958.
I don't mean to be harsh. I actually enjoy a good, intelligent discussion, on the issues, but the reasons you cite for your decision are emotional at best.
-
They're actually too late. Obama already traded his testicles with his political sponsors.
-
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. But I do have a couple of points I would like to make.
1. Never assume that a persons GPA or standing in their graduating class is an indication of intelligence. I personally graduated at the bottom of my class yet was offered a full scholarship to the University of Maryland because I nearly aced the SATs. Why? School was boring for me. While everyone else was plodding along studying chapter 8 of their text book, I'd already devoured the entire book and understood the principles outlined.
2. The United States does negotiate with its enemies. What seems to have been conveniently forgotten is Saddam Hussein was given a whole ten years during which he repeatedly snubbed his nose at the rest of the world. Don't forget that he purposely ordered the attack of a smaller neighboring country (Kuwaitt), thereby threatening Saudi Arabia, where you currently reside. The U.S U.N and U.A.E gave him every opportunity to comply with international weapons inspectors, but he would only allow them access when he was threatened with a military response. Also. don't ever forget that during the first Gulf War he purposely ordered the launch of SCUD missiles at targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia in an effort to swing Arab opinion in his favor.
3. As for Iran, who are currently test firing mid range missiles, I give you this quote from Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Heres' a link to the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/)
How are you supposed to negotiate with someone like this?
Let's say in the not too distant future that Iran succeeds in securing launch capable WMD's and their president threatens to launch a strike against Isreal. Who would you want as CIC? Obama? McCain?
Personally I'd prefer McCain mostly because he's already made that decision, long ago, in 1967. As a fighter/bomber pilot in Vietnam he had the final say as to who would die when he consciously chose to release his bombs over a target.
Has Obama done anything remotely like this?
4. I've had the displeasure to be involved in the initial interview of several terrorists who were detained by my unit while I was stationed in Germany in the mid seventies. I was assigned to my units G2 at the time. They attempted to gain access to the base ammo dump and were snagged by a couple of M-16 toting guards. Their whole demeanor was disturbing. They had already chosen to die, there was nothing you could do to them, nothing you could threaten them with, to get them to cooperate in a civil manner. It is not possible to negotiate with a person who has chosen that path. Negotiation involves trading. I'll give you this if you give me that. In most cases the trade involves a life, usually the terrorists life as they normally hold the hostages during a standoff. If they're prepared to to die, the only thing you can realistically do is speed them on their way.
Honestly I've never come across the comment that all Arabs want to kill Christians! Now if the comment was "All Arab terrorists want to kill Christians" Yes, I've seen that.
Carrel, I've checked and McCain graduated 884 out of 889 from his class at Annapolis in 1958.
I don't mean to be harsh. I actually enjoy a good, intelligent discussion, on the issues, but the reasons you cite for your decision are emotional at best.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, including your point that the reasons I gave for liking and supporting Obama are largely emotional ones. However, although McCain has served in the military, I still fundamentally do not trust him, largely because I think he's going to follow in Bush's footsteps too closely. In addition to this, although I don't have any evidence to back this up, I've noticed that McCain seems to switch his sides on issues occasionally.
Also, one of the reasons why I distrust/dislike him, is because he supports torture/waterboarding.
<S>
Yossarian
-
Also, one of the reasons why I distrust/dislike him, is because he supports torture/waterboarding.
Who doesn't? :aok
-
The only difference between torture under this administration. and torture under previous administrations over the last 30-40 years is that we do it ourselves instead of paying some other country to do it for us
-
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, including your point that the reasons I gave for liking and supporting Obama are largely emotional ones. However, although McCain has served in the military, I still fundamentally do not trust him, largely because I think he's going to follow in Bush's footsteps too closely. In addition to this, although I don't have any evidence to back this up, I've noticed that McCain seems to switch his sides on issues occasionally.
Also, one of the reasons why I distrust/dislike him, is because he supports torture/waterboarding.
<S>
Yossarian
I will admit McCain has switched sides on a number of issues, so too has Obama. From what I've seen in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote in the mid seventies the candidates tend to tell you what you want to hear in order to get your vote. That's why I have never trusted a politician, and in every election I've voted in I've chosen the lesser of two evils. In this election that will be McCain.
As for the torture issue, unfortunately in the world in which we currently live, it is a necessary evil. I dislike it. But at the same time I understand that at times we must do distasteful things in order to survive.
-
Why? Because there's no way I would ever vote for McCain. I actually find the prospect of that guy being President to be quite disturbing, seeing as he does not seem overly intelligent (he graduated very near the bottom of his military class), and also I dislike his foreign policy, which seems to be following that of Bush (largely because McCain supports attacking Iran). In addition to this, I have listened to Obama speaking, and whilst his economic policies may not be too sound, I think that at this time, it is far more important to have a President with a good foreign policy - i.e. one which prefers negotiating with countries such as Iran, rather than attacking them.
And just in case any rabid right-winger charges in here and screams "nnnaah you cannot reason with Arabs all they want to do is kill all Christians" (yes, I have heard that before), I am going to say that if you think that, you really need to actually visit the Middle East - I am in Bahrain now, and let me assure you that the previous comment is far from the truth.
<S>
Yossarian
I guess you missed where Obama said he'd attack Pakistan (nuke?), who actually IS one of our pseudo-allies, if need be
-
I still fundamentally do not trust him, largely because I think he's going to follow in Bush's footsteps too closely.
As opposed to blindly follow directions from Illinois?
-
Who doesn't? :aok
Me.
As opposed to blindly follow directions from Illinois?
Evidence?
I guess you missed where Obama said he'd attack Pakistan (nuke?), who actually IS one of our pseudo-allies, if need be
I just googled that topic (Obama statement nuke Pakistan), and the only result on the first page which looked decently-reliable, from ABC news (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1)), said:
Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."
Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
I then googled: 'Obama statement invade Pakistan', and got this from The Times (UK) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece):
Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
These quotes seem to suggest that Obama did not say that he would be willing to nuke Pakistan, but rather that it wasn't an option, before then retracting that statement.
<S>
Yossarian
-
Yossarian ---> posts by Charon.
-
I thought Obama's observation had some merit, but I'm suspicious of him enough to suspect that his words were meant more for middle white America ... especially since he didn't bother to praise the many, many good black fathers and family men who do the right thing every day. In other words, I think Obama is astute and intuitive enough to know how to widen his appeal with middle America and betting that the black men he just threw under the bus will tolerate it to see a black man get over. Too bad his policies on nearly everthing are destructive to our country.
I can't understand why there isn't more talk about the upcoming war in the middle east. Maybe they would like to forget about it. McCain should be speaking realistically about it even if people don't really get it yet. It is a freight train coming down the track, and its blowing its whistle... Israel will strike Iran - maybe the US will too - this is the most immediate issue.
I tend to want to disagree with you, Gunthr-Since the slide the economy's taken has hit alot of people, I don't think that foreign policy will be that big an issue in this election. I tend to think that politics' will be closer to home this time; the mortgage/credit crisis is yet to be resolved, and it has caused a domino effect in other sectors' of the economy, to the point that many Americans' are feeling the pinch now. I think you will see the most positive responses to the candidate that has the best format for economic recovery.
-
As to the original issue of Jackson vs. Obama....It's easy to see what's happened. Obama's ascendance to power in the black community, virtually dethrones' people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. They will do anything, including throwing support in for the opposing candidate, if it means' they can stop Obama. They are more afraid of protecting their own little perches, rather than even supporting something that could immensely further the general cause of total equality. However...By Jackson saying what he did, he gives' Obama a chance to excise himself from Jackson or Sharpton's style of Hate-mongering racial-based politics. It could help align Obama more with voters' of different demographics, if it appears' he has split with radicals like Sharpton/Jackson. It has a good chance of bringing in more white voters, for instance...
-
I think Obama has proven himself to be very willing and perhaps quite adept at playing politics. There aren't enough black people to elect him so he must present himself a moderate so that others who want more government control and support (socialism) can ease their consciences in voting for more bread and circuses.
-
As to the original issue of Jackson vs. Obama....It's easy to see what's happened. Obama's ascendance to power in the black community, virtually dethrones' people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. They will do anything, including throwing support in for the opposing candidate, if it means' they can stop Obama. They are more afraid of protecting their own little perches, rather than even supporting something that could immensely further the general cause of total equality. However...By Jackson saying what he did, he gives' Obama a chance to excise himself from Jackson or Sharpton's style of Hate-mongering racial-based politics. It could help align Obama more with voters' of different demographics, if it appears' he has split with radicals like Sharpton/Jackson. It has a good chance of bringing in more white voters, for instance...
WHAT THAT MAN SAID! :aok
I am still waiting to see the knockdown, dragout, pursefight between Jessie and Sharpton when accidently the news media forgets and provides only a 30 second soundbite that both will have to share in front of the camera. :rofl
-
I think what Jackson is angry about is the the elephant in the room. Obama has no experience and no reason to be president except that he is a white looking black man. He's pre-fab, brand GREAT. He's the Oprah book of the month. You could take Rev. Pfleger's rant of Hillary Clinton and substitute Jesse Jackson and you have the source of the hate. "How dare he? I'm ENTITLED!" I'VE BOWED TO Coretta King for THIRTY YEARS!" In ways there is justification for Jackson's anger. If Obama won (which I really doubt is possible) I wouldn't be angry because a black person or liberal won, I'd be angry that the propaganda media has become so powerful and corrupt, they threw the election. Obama is not the black candidate to me, but the propaganda creation.
If the media can elevate a not so successful local politician to the Presidency, then surely we are a nation of imbeciles.
-
Obama is the feel good president to usher in the next great depression. After this everyone will point to him (or quite possibly his very early grave) and say, "We had a Black President once, look what that got us!"
It's all a ploy by the powers that be to set the cause of the African Americans back another 50 years or so.