Luis you said sarcastically that white people are underrepresented in college... meaning that you think black are.

That just isnt true. The percentage of blacks in college is higher than the percentage in the general population.

3/27/2008 1:35:22 PM

typical asian people.

3/27/2008 1:50:49 PM

Overrepresented at what schools? Across all schools? If not, which schools?

3/27/2008 2:13:22 PM

Quote :

"Just be glad racism against Asians is still kosher in this country."

This does seem to be true. At the least, most Americans don't take racism against Asians as seriously as racism against blacks. John McCain's comments would be one example. You can find others.

Why do you think this is? Historical identification of Asian communists as the enemy? Relative low Asian population in America?

3/27/2008 3:38:32 PM

Quote :

"most Americans don't take racism against Asians as seriously as racism against blacks"

is it because: there are more black people than asians in the US, to get upset

or maybe blacks are overly defensive about defending any potential racist remarks, ie as far as i know, asians dont have a 'jesse jackson' or 'al sharpton' who comes on tv during any potential scandal and yells and screams

3/27/2008 3:40:38 PM

Racism sucks, period. We all need to listen to Obama, who seems to be the only American who can speak about race so effectively. Next time you have that racist though in your head, Obama's voice comes in and says "not this time"

not this time

3/27/2008 3:40:44 PM

Quote :

"Obama, who seems to be the only American who can speak about race so effectively"

seems to me he is obsessed with race

but in regards to speaking about race effectively, the fact that he is part minority means he can speak about minorities without the same backlash that a white/non-minority would get for commenting on a minority race...i for one am not too big on black liberation theology...it doesnt go for black equality but instead for black supremacy...i'm not a fan of any race's supremacy

3/27/2008 3:41:11 PM

Quote :

"seems to me he is obsessed with race"

This far from the truth. If anything, he tried to avoid the issue initially. Once others brought it up, he addressed it gracefully. Obama's a class act. I don't think I've any other major politician address racial issues so honesty.

I'm not surprised people are getting upset. If the dialogue continues, it's going to hurt.

3/27/2008 3:47:07 PM

Quote :

"Racism sucks, period. We all need to listen to Obama, who seems to be the only American who can speak about race so effectively. Next time you have that racist though in your head, Obama's voice comes in and says "not this time" "

We all need to listen to Obama? Drinking the Koolaid, huh?


Obama is an EXCELLENT speaker. He has a way with words...but I still don't see any substance behind them.

We aren't just going to get over racism. It won't stop until institutions that spark divisions between race are eliminated.

3/27/2008 3:47:21 PM

not this time

3/27/2008 3:48:57 PM

Quote :

"This far from the truth. If anything, he tried to avoid the issue initially."

having a racist like Rev. Wright as his spiritual advisor and attending his church is trying to avoid the issue of race?

^dude is that going to be your new catch phrase....like "We'll Never Forget" or "Vote Or Die"?

Will racist white America elect a black president?

3/27/2008 3:51:57 PM

^ Obama himself didn't mention it publicly much before this scandal broke. Once it did, he responded well.

Obama: "Now that others have raised the issue, I want to begin an open and honest discussion on race. I promise to treat whites fairly if not downright generously."

White reactionaries: "Aw hell no. Stop dredging up the past. That's racist!"

3/27/2008 5:07:04 PM

Quote :

"Obama himself didn't mention it publicly much before this scandal broke. Once it did, he responded well."

Isn't that kinda like saying Spitzer didn't mention the fact that he visited prostitutes until the scandal broke?

Not comparing the the hate/crime, but failing to mention something that could be seen as damaging isn't exactly breathtaking.

3/27/2008 5:11:20 PM

^ Well, you can hardly accuse Obama of playing the race card. It was played against him. Did he see the scandal coming? Possible. Perhaps he initially avoided talking much about race as a calculated strategy.

3/27/2008 5:15:46 PM

^ I agree. Race doesn't help him.....he would get the black vote anyway b/c they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. There are still sizable numbers of people in every other racial group who will look at a "black" man differently than they would another candidate.

3/27/2008 5:19:40 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/flashback-wrights-lette_n_93820.html

Quote :

"In March 2007, New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor published a brief story about how Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been uninvited from delivering the invocation before Barack Obama's official presidential announcement. Wright responded by writing the following letter: March 11, 2007 Jodi Kantor The New York Times 9 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036-3959 Dear Jodi: Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met. For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed. I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed. Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that. As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy. I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office. Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years. The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth. Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie! Sincerely and respectfully yours, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor Trinity United Church of Christ "

3/28/2008 10:06:53 AM

newsflash: the NY Times has an agenda.

cons have been screaming this for years. now, some Obama supporters are seeing the same things. its a shame what this newspaper has turned into over the past 10 years.

3/28/2008 10:12:05 AM

you mean asians weren't put on this earth for simply the entertainment pleasure of the rest of us?


wow.

3/28/2008 10:32:16 AM

Quote :

"Statements like calling for the eradication of the white race? Or are you too for whatever reason ignorant of Wright's views and rhetoric?"

Has this claim been substantiated yet?

Below is a sermon of Reverend Wright's. Take from it, what you will:

Quote :

""Justice is ignored. When women are treated like, or are permitted by this society to be called publicly, 'bitches,' justice is ignored. And on that note, let me paraphrase Dr. Anthony Campolo, one of the nation's greatest preachers. He said something to this effect: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college. Racism is alive and well. Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. No black man can ever be President. I don't care how hard you run Jesse. No black woman will ever be considered for anything outside of what she can give with her body. America is still the number one killer in the world. We invaded Grenada for no other reason than to get Maurice Bishop. We destroyed Panama because Noriega would no longer dance to our tune anymore. We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children, while trying to turn public opinion against Castro and Qaddafi. We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God. We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians, and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. You're just finding out about that. We care nothing about human life, if the end justifies the means. We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly. We abandoned the cities back in the sixties when the riots started, and it really doesn't matter what those 'natives' do to each other. We gave up on them and public education for poor people who live in the projects. We, with VCRs, DVDs, CDs and portable phones, have more homeless than any nation in the world. We started the AIDS virus, and now that it is out of control we still put more money in the military than in medicine. More money in hate than humanitarian concerns. Everybody does not have access to health care. I don't care what the rich white boys in the Senate say. Listen up. If you are poor, black, and elderly — forget it. We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure the Third World people live in grinding poverty. We are selfish, self-centered ego egotists, who are arrogant and ignorant. We pray at church and do not try to make the kingdom that Jesus talked about a reality. And in light of these, in fact, God has got to be sick of this shit!""

I'm not sure what to make of his claims regarding AIDS and radiation; however, everything else seems rather poignantly honest. He brings attention to the fact that we profit off of the exploitation of third world markets, that our U.S. foreign policy is abhorrently hypocritical, and that our military has far over-reached its bounds. I can't imagine why the mainstream media would want to discredit someone like that.

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

3/28/2008 6:27:21 PM

^ Yeah, and Italians have garlic noses.

3/28/2008 7:09:12 PM

Quote :

"however, everything else seems rather poignantly honest."

You are the ____________ ever.

A) biggest idiot
B) biggest racist
C) most brainwashed person
D) biggest excuse-maker



I don't know you, so I'll let you fill in the blank. If you beleive that, I can't take you seriously as an adult.

3/28/2008 7:41:33 PM

^ He's not the only one.

3/28/2008 7:43:13 PM

^^
I clarified what I found questionable.

Please clarify for me, if you will, what else in that post doesn't reflect at least a minimal amount of honesty. Feel free to validate the wars in Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. Explain to me how our corporate culture isn't explointing workers in third-world countries. Of, if you prefer, ignore all that and simply explain what you find dishonest, aside from what I have previously pointed out.

3/28/2008 7:52:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't care what the rich white boys "

So the average age of a US Senator is 60.4 years old and to Wright they are nothing but white boys.

So instead of learning from the lessons and humiliation of the past, he is trying to use words to belittle someone because of their race.

If you don't believe that this man is racist, it's because you yourself are racist, or just self loathing.

3/28/2008 7:57:19 PM

^^racists can be honest and still be racist

^i tried telling people weeks ago that Wright was clearly a racist and a bigot...but back then instead of just saying "Obama isn't Wright" they were still in denial that Wright was even a racist...looks like some of them are still in denial

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2008 7:58:59 PM

Quote :

"If you don't believe that this man is racist, it's because you yourself are racist, or just self loathing."

Wright: "I'm tired of white supremacy/privilege and I'm going to speak out against it."

Reactionaries: "OMFG that's racist!"

Stupid liberals: "No, that's honest."

Reactionaries: "J00 are t3h racist 2!!1 Racist bigot self-loathing racist!"

3/28/2008 8:06:30 PM

He may be honestly saying what he beleives....but he is wrong. I think that you are attempting to read between the lines way too much with what he has said.

US Foreign Policy is designed to promote the interests of the United States....just like every other country's foreign policy represents what is in their best interests, so I'm not going to attempt to justify everything we have ever done.


What I have an issue with is that everything is racism this, racism that. Until the black community accepts the fact that 75% of the problems that exist for them in today's world are their own fault, nothing will change. And its the same thing here....blame blame blame someone else.


edit- I should probably change "black" to "those of African-American heritage who have been in the US for at least a full generation" as well as problems in America instead of the world.

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2008 8:11:30 PM

Wright: "The white devil is responsible for all the world's problems"

TWW Liberals: "He's just pointing out facts"

3/28/2008 8:12:09 PM

Quote :

"So the average age of a US Senator is 60.4 years old and to Wright they are nothing but white boys. So instead of learning from the lessons and humiliation of the past, he is trying to use words to belittle someone because of their race."

So it's now racist to refer to someone by a nomer not reflective of his or her accurate age? In other words, calling a white man a "boy" is belittling his race?

^^
I argued that what the reverend said, for the most part, was honest.

So please share with me what I posted that makes me the biggest idiot, biggest racist, most brainwashed person, or the biggest excuse-maker ever.

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 8:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/28/2008 8:12:33 PM

^

White men calling black men "boys" is ALWAYS regarded as racist.

3/28/2008 8:16:17 PM

I always assumed that was when the term was used as a proper noun, but I'll allow it.

Carry on.

3/28/2008 8:21:52 PM

Quote :

"So it's now racist to refer to someone by a nomer not reflective of his or her accurate age? In other words, calling a white man a "boy" is belittling his race? "

I can't tell if this is a serious question or just trolling? Really.

3/28/2008 9:19:32 PM

And if a white person were to refer to congressmen as 'rich boys,' that would be considered racist, too, right?

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

3/28/2008 9:30:56 PM

Sorry for the double post, but I would like to clarify that I was not commending the reverend for saying that congressmen are "rich white boys." In fact, I didn't even think twice that he referred to them as such. I suppose that makes me a racist. I was commending the reverend for his honest statements regarding U.S. foreign policy.

Quote :

"US Foreign Policy is designed to promote the interests of the United States"

What interests were we promoting in Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, and Grenada? Those are the points that I was primarily referencing. Sure, we can't justify every action that our government takes overseas. However, we should still speak candidly about such actions, which the reverend clearly has done. When was the last time the mainstream media presented us with information regarding these wars? There were tremendous deathtolls in these countries, and for what? What interests were there that required our intervention in such conflicts?

Perhaps I'm a racist for not noticing the reverend's overt racism. Perhaps you're inhumane for not noticing his references to wars, through which countless deaths were paid for by our parents' tax dollars. You're sick and tired of others playing the victim; I'm sick and tired of us not recognizing the victims. I suppose it's all the same. I just find it odd that I posted something, in which he referenced a number of seemingly important issues, and we took from it that he referred to some congressmen as "rich white boys."

3/28/2008 10:11:13 PM

I thought they were pointing towards the term "white" much more so than "boys". I mean if he had said that the "white congressmen" had done such and such then that would seem to point towards the reverend harboring the belief that the congressmen were a product of their own race... that is the congressmen just acted that way because they were "white".

One could contrast the statements,

1.) that group of MacDonalds employees sure are lazy.
2.) that group of black MacDonalds employees sure are lazy.

One is racist, one is not. (oh noes I think black people work at MacDonalds )

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM. Reason : ^I see my typing reached you telepath style.]

3/28/2008 10:25:27 PM

nm

3/28/2008 10:55:44 PM

Quote :

"Obama is an EXCELLENT speaker. He has a way with words...but I still don't see any substance behind them. "

That's your own failing, not Obama's.

Quote :

"Isn't that kinda like saying Spitzer didn't mention the fact that he visited prostitutes until the scandal broke? Not comparing the the hate/crime, but failing to mention something that could be seen as damaging isn't exactly breathtaking. "

Umm... no. That's not what GV was saying. He's saying Obama didn't really focus on race issues until the wright thing. He knew it would be divisive like in this thread. He was forced to talk about race after the whole wright thing.

Quote :

"i for one am not too big on black liberation theology...it doesnt go for black equality but instead for black supremacy...i'm not a fan of any race's supremacy"

Where do you get the idea that it is for black supremacy? You're the first person i've heard say this.

Quote :

"having a racist like Rev. Wright as his spiritual advisor and attending his church is trying to avoid the issue of race? "

Perhaps you like to wallow in ignorance or being duped by the media, but it's pretty clear that a majority of wright's sermons weren't him ranting about race relations. I'll post this again for your benefit: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TRINITYCHGO

Quote :

"If you don't believe that this man is racist, it's because you yourself are racist, or just self loathing. "

So Obama, who is half white and was raised by his single white mother and grandmother chose to befriend and be inspired by someone who is racist against white people? Do you realize that makes no sense? And this same person has grown the largest church membership of the predominantly white UCC churches, as well as encourages white people to visit his own church. The only evidence you have so far purported shows that he's racist is that he called the congressman "white boys".

If you think he IS racist, you're either extremely gullible and were fooled by the media, or racist yourself, and refuse to consider the data objectively, instead yielding to your own biases. To be clear, Wright clearly has an agenda, and has said some dumb things, but he doesn't hate white people.

3/29/2008 12:01:36 AM

3/29/2008 12:54:02 AM

Wow, not only has he recovered from Wright on the democratic side, he has his biggest lead yet over Hillary.




He's still extremely close to McCain and holding steady at 44%.

I guess nationally, 2% of the people didn't want to admit that Obama was part black

[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

3/29/2008 1:00:29 AM

^^
LOL booyah

3/29/2008 1:01:22 AM

Quote :

"And if a white person were to refer to congressmen as 'rich boys,' that would be considered racist, too, right? "

Yes, this would be considered racist if the congressman that a white person were referring to was black. This referencing of those who are clearly of the age to be considered men as boys has roots in the racism that was present in everyday life for those of African decent in this country. Whites used to always refer to black men as boys regardless of age in order to assert superiority and that is why many now refer to any white man as a white boy. Being ignorant of this would explain why you fail to comprehend the racist undertones.

Quote :

"So Obama, who is half white and was raised by his single white mother and grandmother chose to befriend and be inspired by someone who is racist against white people? Do you realize that makes no sense?"

Exactly, it makes no sense. That's the whole point. I can't understand why Obama has chosen to associate with someone who is so plainly racist. Oh, that's right because it helped him to be elected in South Chicago. It's not as complicated as you may think and I am not claiming that Obama is racist, but he is clearly not opposed to associating himself with those who are if he believes that it will benefit home in some way.



[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 10:24 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/29/2008 10:19:40 AM

all this fuss over this guy???

lol

3/29/2008 10:23:59 AM

Quote :

"Exactly, it makes no sense. That's the whole point. I can't understand why Obama has chosen to associate with someone who is so plainly racist. Oh, that's right because it helped him to be elected in South Chicago. It's not as complicated as you may think and I am not claiming that Obama is racist, but he is clearly not opposed to associating himself with those who are if he believes that it will benefit home in some way. "

Wait, so is the pendulum swinging the other way now? So Wright's not really Obama's actual true close personal friend, he's just his friend-on-tv that he uses for political gain?

You should let the media know that, as well as twista, eyedrb, and all the other people who have asserted the exact opposite as you.

3/29/2008 10:58:05 PM

remember. it's OK for a black guy to make racially charged statements

3/29/2008 11:00:16 PM

^ When condemning racism, absolutely.

I strongly support revolution over reaction.

3/29/2008 11:07:48 PM

^^^My bad, I didn't know I wasn't entitled to my own opinion. What the fuck are you talking about tv for? If you don't believe that one of Obama's main motivations for his involvement in his chuch was the black vote in South Chicago, well, there is no hope in talking to you.

Besides, regardless of the underlying reason, Obama still made a decision (for whatever reason) to closely align himself with Mr. Wright, from the time it was politicallly expedient until the time it became politically detrimental.

Ah, the winds of self serving change.

^He is promoting racism. The palpable unease in everyone including the uneasiness that prompted Obama's speech denouncing Wright should be evidence enough that his comments are derisive and nothing more. Please continue defending stupid people.





[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : sad panda]

3/29/2008 11:10:23 PM

^^ so, it's OK to be racist if you are against racism. Got it

3/29/2008 11:13:38 PM

Quote :

"so, it's OK to be racist if you are against racism. Got it"

That's not quite how racism works.

There's a difference between being privileged and being oppressed.

3/29/2008 11:19:15 PM

Kudos to Pupils DiL8t for the long attention span.

As for the Obama trolls scaling the bridge over the new polls...

How does the public's resurgent support vindicate the Reverend's comments in any way?

I'd suggest an alternative, far less hysterical hypothesis. Maybe, just maybe the public realized they weren't voting for the Reverend. Certainly Obama's campaign went into overdrive to instill them with that impression, but the numbers do not lie. It appears his campaign succeeded.

Or Hillary failed to capitalize. Or both.

3/30/2008 1:23:06 AM

Quote :

"How does the public's resurgent support vindicate the Reverend's comments in any way? "

For the most part, reverend wright's comments in context vindicate his comments.

I think the stabilization in the polls show Obama's speech "worked."

The lead over hillary was post-Bosnia though which I think will hurt her very significantly, far more than Wright hurt Obama.

[Edited on March 30, 2008 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ]

3/30/2008 1:27:07 AM