Are We ready for a Black President?

[Froggi 4]

erica did of course.

[Froggi 4]

lol i started posting my views in the other thread when i should be doing it in both silly me lol

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

BJean- I'm not referencing TV. I'm referencing real life... I've personally seen pressure on a lot of friends I have and my own husband, who are black. When the Primaries were in Texas, in fact, a radio station spent several hours analyzing, with calls in and such, indicating that you're not a real black person if you don't vote Obama.

[Froggi 4]

So I guess I am not a real white person because I didn't vote for hillary in my state and I don't plan on voting for McCain. Obama all the way :cursing:

[BJean 16]

MrsFlipFlops what part of Texas? Not that it really matters. But I live in Texas and I was just wondering.

I did wonder a little bit about what you said about pressure being put on black people by other black people for not voting for Obama. You said that it wasn't on TV that you had seen it. But that you had heard a couple of hours of call-ins on a radio program where they were doing that. And you said that you've heard friends doing it.

I think it is kinda pitiful that people pressure other people in that way just because they want their candidate to win so badly. But people do all kinds of stuff to try to get folks to vote their way. How does your husband feel about friends accusing him of not being black enough because he isn't for Obama?

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

BJean- to clarify I've seen it with my friends and hubby. I was just mentioning the radio thing because I thought it was interesting. I live in the DFW area.

My hubby has chronically been accused of "acting white" and has learned to brush it off. I'm amazed at the kinds of things people will say to promote a candidate. It does go in all directions, but I've particularly seen it in Obama's case.

[BJean 16]

I agree! It is amazing what people are capable of, isn't it.

I too am in the D/FW area. I listen to several talk shows on the radio but not for political commentary, purely for entertainment. I can only think about and be involved in religion and politics for a little bit every day, otherwise it could become an obsession.

[TheGh0st 9]

Grrr.... I just spent nearly 30 minutes typing a post here just to have Internet Explorer crash on me. Grrr....

I don't have time to rethink and retype the whole thing as elegantly as before but I still want to get out the gist of what I wanted to say especially to the likes of Watcher and BJean. You two are amongst my favorite LBT-posters and I always respect what you have to say though I'm often on the other side of the political fence.

But I did want to say I was a bit hurt by BJean's comment below the other day:

The Republicans cannot just stick with the actual political issues. Because if they stick with the issues and be honest about what they intend to do, they will lose big time. They have been playing this game for many years. They don't attack a man or woman's stand on the issues, they attack the person. And they don't even attack the person with real facts. They go as far out on a limb with outright lies as they can without everyone shouting them down. They go just far enough so that those who are looking for a reason not to vote for someone will believe what they have circulated in the press and on the 'net. They go just far enough to shock people into believing the bad news without getting serious enough about it to learn the truth.

Well, I gotta admit that in several races, it has worked. I find it horribly disgusting and I do not respect anyone who jumps on that kind of personal attack and either agrees with it or believes it without learning the truth.

We should not put up with those kinds of political tactics. We should do all we can to prove that dishonest personal accusations have no place in our political races. The only way we can seriously give them that message is to get out the vote and drum them out of office!

I do understand where you are coming from and COMPLETELY agree with the last paragraph. What hurt was the implication that this is a flaw strictly of the Republicans and that it was indemic in ALL republicans. I didn't want to come across as a mudslinger myself so I didn't spend anytime trying to find proof of any democrats attacking republicans with lies and deception but I'm sure we would all agree it happens.

But I did want to point out that NOT ALL repbulican behave this way.

For example just this morning I received an e-mail which came in two parts. The larger part was in support of McCain that upon research proved true but the second part was a deceptively false quote touted to be from Obama. In the end I spent well over an hour researching and debunking the portion of the e-mail that was against Obama. I wrote out a detailed rebuttal with links to sites such as Snopes.com to back me up and sent it back to the original poster along with every person I saw that he had forwarded it to. Pleading with them to stop spreading the lies.

This is something I do everytime I see it. Wether it helps or hurts my candidate. BJean, Watcher, I love you guys, but please try not to fall in the trap of lumping whole groups of people together and accusing them all of the negative tactics of a few. It makes you start to look as guilty as the ignorant people who believe all muslims are either terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. And I for one know that neither of you have any right to be accused of being ignorant.

(oddly enough the e-mail came from my democratic step father who loves to joke about locking my republican mother in the closet on election days, but yet plans to vote for McCain, but that is a long story for another day and not necessarily one that helps McCain's position)

[BJean 16]

Hey Ghost, thanks for the positive comments and the not so positive ones as well. And thanks a bunch for going ahead and reposting after having lost your original one. I've had that happen and it is extremely frustrating!

I am married to a Republican. He's from a whole family of Republicans, all of whom I love dearly! Of course all Republicans aren't representative of the way I characterized them in my post.

When I refer to the antics of the Republican party or of the current administration, I am not saying that each and every person who works at the White House or who is registered to that party, is guilty of that behavior. But I can say that the group is guilty of something as a whole, and be accurate.

Just like I have to take it when people label all Democrats as extreme liberals who like to make the government bigger, collect and spend more taxes, take away all guns, hug all the trees and throw red paint on people who wear fur. Of course we aren't all like that. I'm sure not.

So please when I'm referring to a group of people, don't think that I believe that everyone who is registered as a Republican believes that the war in Iraq was a brilliant move or that everybody should own machine guns and hollow-core bullets, or that global warming doesn't matter.

We're all individuals. We do, however, sometimes work collectively for things we want to achieve for our country. And doing that sometimes causes us to belong to a group that we don't agree with 100% on each and every issue. That's just the breaks of the game. We have to take the good with the bad sometimes. And hopefully, we can make sure that more good than bad happens.

If we disagree with the political tactics of our party, we can be vocal about it and disavow that behavior. It sounds like you are doing just that and I commend you for it!

Thanks for your heartfelt post!!

[plain 12]

Just like I have to take it when people label all Democrats as extreme liberals who like to make the government bigger, collect and spend more taxes, take away all guns, hug all the trees and throw red paint on people who wear fur. Of course we aren't all like that. I'm sure not.

That's why you shouldn't make such umbrella statements. I think rational, thinking people don't get caught up in stuff like that. "Don't vote for Obama, he's a muslim"......"Don't vote for McCain, it'd be like the 3rd term of George Bush"......"Vote democrat, the republicans have screwed up the country"...."Vote republican, the democrats are weak on terror"....

Every quote above is mind-numbingly stupid. Only weak-minded simpletons would allow something inflammatory to influence how they vote.

(BTW, my hot button issue is oil. It may eventually wreck our country. We can't drill our way out of this one, folks!!)

[Gone4Now 4]

MrsFlipFlops,

Interesting about the "Obama is black" statement. I've been thinking about that, and remembered one time my daughter asked if she was black or white. I said both, mixed with a bit of mutt genes from across the globe.

It's not a black vs white issue, and I don't get why people don't see that.

I'm certainly not voting against Obama because he's part black. That really has nothing to do with it, at all. (If I were to vote based on appearances, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because he's smoking hot! IMO)

I also can see the points BJean and Elenation are saying about his break with the church. IF it was sincere, and IF he really had no idea that the minister felt that way, then the break was the best thing for him.

I will keep an open mind.

I'm not happy about Bush, and I am looking for a change. Reading these posts are very interesting to me, and have helped more than the crap you see on tv. I am a deep cynic and feel that nothing on TV is real, or in politics either. I like watching the debates, because it's out of their own mouth - question/answer - or evasion. (Sometimes they talk around answering, but it's still directly from the horses' mouths.)

[BJean 16]

I don't think any of us has a desire to see companies' profits taken away. Do you really think that's a problem with oil companies, Jack?

What we've been doing is subsidizing oil companies and Americans have been supposed to be thrilled with the fact that oil is less expensive and more readily available here than in many other countries. The fact is that with all the help we've given oil companies, we're probably not paying less - just less at the pump.

I cannot understand why Americans think that by making corporations pay their fair share of taxes, that it is going to be unfair to them or do them harm. Many things were put into effect to incentivize them and by gosh, they have been incentivized to the max. Are you happy with all the enormous profits that they are enjoying now? Is it helping America?

The Republicans have spent the last over 7 years making things ultra favorable to corporations in the U.S. And they love the idea of the "trickle down theory" which has never worked and never will. It's all about greed and the more they make, the greedier they get. It's time to slow it down a bit. Checks and balances are in order.

I don't want the pendulum to swing back in such a way that wealthy Americans and corporations are being penalized - I just want them to give a little back so that we less fortunate folks don't have to give quite so much.

And Plain I am sorry that you do not understand why I say "the Republicans" or "the Democrats" or "the Independents" instead of referring to an individual who is running for office. Each party has a platform that they adopt - things that they believe in and want to put (or keep) in effect. That's what the Republican party and the Democratic party and the Independent party stand for, each as a group. Yes, those groups are made up of individuals but it isn't one individual who is making the policy, it's a group.

Therefore referring to them as a group is the only proper way to discuss what they stand for and what they endorse. John and Cindy McCain aren't the Republican party - they are only members of the party. They will do, in some cases, what the Republican party asks of them as representatives of the party. That's why if you like McCain, but dislike the party platform, and you vote for the man, you're still getting the party platform. Perhaps that's not very important to you, but it's important that we understand how this works.

[ELENATION 0]

Just watched an Obama commercial.

He stated he was going to 'take the windfall profits from the oil companies and give it to a heating program'.

Can someone point to our Constitution where it says an agent of the Federal Government has the right to take earnings away from the producer of such, and give it to someone else?

Further, can Mr. Obama seriously believe, should he succeed in doing such, that the price of oil will not be adjusted upward by at least a similar amount, so those buying gasoline will be paying more at the pump?

And lastly, can Mr. Obama explain how running such funds through several more layers of bureaucrats going to make oil products any more economical for anyone?

Stealing from Peter to pay Paul will always garner the support from Paul.

But then taxes will be increased for the oil companies, and wouldn't we end up paying higher taxesl? sounds as if we could tax our way out of the problem.... I don't know know if that;s the solution..:tongue:

[BJean 16]

I don't believe that Obama is suggesting an additional windfall profits tax. He is speaking to where the money should be spent. Other candidates have suggested doing away with the windfall profits tax completely. Which sounds like what you're suggesting, Jack.

One thing you can't argue with is that the oil companies are making plenty. Three of them reported first-quarter earnings; combined, the total surpassed $27 billion! They have hardly passed that on to consumers. Our gas prices have gone up every month since then.

My thought is that rather than taxing these companies more, it would be better to withdraw the $1.8 billion in subsidies being given to these exorbitantly profitable companies. And that was what I was referring to in my previous post. If we thought it was necessary, some of that money could be used to investigate possible price gouging. Investigators might ask why only from 81 percent to 85 percent of the nation's gasoline refining capacity was in use during April.

When California suffered electricity shortages in 2000-01, firms such as Enron illegally manipulated the market by shutting down 12 percent of production capacity. Even that amount created a highly profitable crisis. Seeing oil refineries operating at even greater reductions is eerily familiar.

As for drilling our way out of this crisis, as the president suggests, that's a smokescreen. The number of oil wells in this nation has increased by 66 percent over the past eight years. We don't need wells in wildlife refuges; we need better ideas.

Obama understands this, which is why he has refused to embrace easy but flawed solutions to score cheap political points.

Some of this information was taken from a newspaper report. Some is just thoughts of my own. As for the definition of windfall profits tax, all you have to do it search the 'net. There are tons of sources explaining it from every direction.

And btw, the trickle down theory that Republicans embrace has never really worked. It doesn't have to do with government spending, Jack, it's the idea that large corporations make so much money that the poor and middle class benefit over time from the huge corporate profits. If only it worked! That would be fantastic. I would support it wholeheartedly. But it doesn't and we found that out during Reagan's presidency.

[BJean 16]

Sorry. That's as short and concise as I can manage to make it.