Will Obama Condemn Starvation Caused By Lords Of Capital?

61
Rick Reuben wrote:
His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.


Just out of curiosity, in your mind does "could be considered controversial" mean exactly the same thing as "anti-U.S."?

They don't mean the same thing, at all.

And if they don't mean the same thing, then the line "he told a different story" doesn't make any sense.

Not that one could expect it to.
"The bastards have landed"

www.myspace.com/thechromerobes - now has a couple songs from the new album

Will Obama Condemn Starvation Caused By Lords Of Capital?

68
Rick Reuben wrote: It is goddamned appalling that 2% of the population and their money and their media sledgehammer forced Barack Obama to push Wright off the gangplank. After hearing Wright speak, it makes me want to vomit when I read that quote from Obama stating that 'Wright is in a time warp'. Appalling. Wright is about twenty years ahead of most of America.


When you take a sentence Obama said and repeat it without context to make him look like a shitheal, you are doing the same thing the media did to Wright.
“As I have said before, the ever more sophisticated weapons piling up in the arsenals of the wealthiest and the mightiest can kill the illiterate, the ill, the poor and the hungry, but they cannot kill ignorance, illness, poverty or hunger.”

Will Obama Condemn Starvation Caused By Lords Of Capital?

69
Rick Reuben wrote:
fidelista wrote:When you take a sentence Obama said and repeat it without context to make him look like a shitheal, you are doing the same thing the media did to Wright.
How can it be out of context? Obama says exactly what he means right here:
Obama described Wright as a "brilliant man who was still stuck in a time warp."

That's a complete thought. He says that Wright has not caught up to modern times. What context is it missing?


The full quote is: “What they spoke to was, I think, a brilliant man who was still caught in a time warp back in the ’60s, early ’70s and the ’50s, where he grew up, and had a sense of where America was and didn’t have a good enough sense of how it had changed”.

Later on in the same interview he says: "I think he's saddened by what's happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven't seen this broader aspect of him."

Obama clearly still has respect for Wright, and defends him as a good person and friend. I don't think you have to agree with every inartful statement your friends make, even if you agree with their larger point, but that's just me. If take the above and reduce it down to "He's stuck in a time warp" it becomes misleading. Just like how they took a sermon about government acting evil towards it's own citizens and reduced it down to "No, no, no... God DAMN America!" and played it in continuous loop night and day. In fact, right-wingers continue to criticize Obama for not throwing Wright under the bus, so it's weird to see Obama criticized for doing exactly that.

If Obama turned it into a fight about how his pastors comments were taken out of context, and that his pastor might have a point, he would just be provoking a fight he can't win. Context is meaningless to the media. He might as well start a fight with a grizzly bear armed with only a short stick. The best thing Obama can do is to point out how ridiculous it is to hold him accountable for every controversial statement anyone he's ever known in his life has said, and disagree with the comments as presented in the media.

The media clearly believe that the US can do no wrong, and any wrongdoing it commits is only in pursuit of some greater good. Even if they don't believe that personally, they are convinced that every bumblefuck out in TV land believes it so it should be reported that way. Even when the "enlightened" newsfolk and pundits in the media say they understand the context, they quickly change the subject and pontificate about how the dumbass rubes in voterland won't understand it. Context and meaning are thrown away, trivial details of the bigger story, all that matters is perception. Defending context and meaning is pointless. It really doesn't matter to the media, and they have no plans to discuss it further, or to allow the "public" discourse to be steered in that direction and have an honest debate about it.

Most likely, they want the public to think that way. They don't want people asking if the government does evil acts, is corrupt, or if our enemies actions and anger are in any way motivated by our previous actions as a nation. If people think that way then, for example, when our president initiates a war that basically murders a million people and turns millions more into hopeless refugees, it's just an "honest mistake" and no should be held accountable for it. Nevermind the vast history of previous US administrations committing the same type of horrible acts, or the numerous piles of evidence indicating that the President is a corrupt shitbag, surrounded by corrupt shitbags, and they should all be rotting in a prison cell for the rest of their natural lives.
“As I have said before, the ever more sophisticated weapons piling up in the arsenals of the wealthiest and the mightiest can kill the illiterate, the ill, the poor and the hungry, but they cannot kill ignorance, illness, poverty or hunger.”

Will Obama Condemn Starvation Caused By Lords Of Capital?

70
Rick Reuben wrote:Doesn't change Obama's quote. I mean, who do you think speaks more accurately about America 2008? Obama or Wright? Obama appears deceptive and Wright appears honest. It's not even close. All Obama is doing is saying, 'we need to heal' and saying to 'look past the past'. Issues like 9/11 blowback and laboratory AIDS and CIA cocaine and Israeli terrorism and US economic colonialism and the military-industrial complex are not in the past, they're in the present. If Obama takes them all off the table, then he's the one in an alternate dimension.

Wright's analysis of America's present state is substantive. Obama's is gloss and appeasement- political Prozac. It's revolting that Obama wants to let this country off the hook for so many things just to get into office.


In whose interests is it to turn this election into a discussion about controversial topics like laboratory aids, CIA running coke, or 9/11 blowback? Why would any candidate with a lick of sense open up that can of worms? The media doesn't allow these topics to be honestly discussed in the first place. They present these topics as though anyone who disagrees with the mainstream is a nut job, and even if they can defend their position with facts and logic, it doesn't matter because the public is too stupid to understand anything but inflammatory sound bytes. The media is fundamentally dishonest, to expect blunt honesty from a candidate is unreasonable.

When I first started paying attention to this campaign, they were trying to rake Obama over the coals for saying he wouldn't nuke a terrorist cell. It was supposed to be a sign that he was niave. Nevermind that it would be fucking crazy, they tried to play it up as though the public is too stupid to understand why it is a bad policy to send nukes after a small group of terrorist and he would be seen as a weak on terror. The whole thing was completely absurd. As a candidate you can challenge the conventional wisdom in an election, but you can only go so far and have to pick and choose carefully which issues to take on.
“As I have said before, the ever more sophisticated weapons piling up in the arsenals of the wealthiest and the mightiest can kill the illiterate, the ill, the poor and the hungry, but they cannot kill ignorance, illness, poverty or hunger.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests