General Music Chat

It's interesting how all these threads are always about the democrats.
Republicans never enter into it, unless they are being bashed.
The country is about 50% of each, but it seems that most the musicinas here are about 90% Democrat . . .
Is that the case?

It's interesting how all these threads are always about the democrats.
Republicans never enter into it, unless they are being bashed.
The country is about 50% of each, but it seems that most the musicinas here are about 90% Democrat . . .
Is that the case?

Let's face it, the Democratic race is the most exciting thing in politics in years. The Republican race was a snoozer. Which do you think will be talked about more?

Musicians tend to be Democrats because that party is the party of the working man, the downtrodden and the poor. Musicians are a poor lot, unless they become stars. Few Repubicans are musicians because they are generally more interested in making money than delivering a "message".

But he did not address the issue of why he would attend a racist church for twenty years.

(snip)

If it was revealed that a white candidate attended KKK meetings for twenty years he would be finished.

Church Attendance:

He attended that church, and accepted some of the harsher rhetoric for two reasons:

1) Rev Wright led Obama to faith in Christ. This point cannot be diminished. For those than believe in Jesus, the person who witnessed to you, will hold a very special place in your heart. Additionally, he testifies that before Wright led him to faith in Christ, church was largely a ceremonial exercise to him. AFTER coming to faith in Christ, suddenly religion comes alive for him, and he realizes that it is indeed REAL and meaningful. It is this pastor and this church, which had a huge hand in changing his life spiritually. When you love someone or something, it creates a vast ability to find tolerance, where otherwise you may not. This is what his analogy of his grandmother was intended to show. His own white grandmother has made insensitive comments about blacks, and being black, ordinarily, he may have had little to do with someone like that, on a personal level. Being his grandmother though, and knowing that she loves him, gives him room for forgiveness for her inappropriate comments. It is much the same with Wright and Obama's church family.

2) Being black, Obama is aware of something that most whites were not, until recently. Namely, that not just Wright, but MANY blacks share the same distrust of government and resentment for the white rich elite who "DO" still control the VAST majority of wealth in this country. Obama understands that Wright is only one of many blacks who believe such things, and were he to disown Wright, he would end up having to disown a large segment of the black community with him. Rather than accept that, he took it as an opportunity to address the deeper issues and concerns (on both sides) for understanding and a chance to reconcile races, rather than try and placate EITHER side. I think that took some courage.



KKK:

This is not even close, as a fair analogy. This church DOES NOT promote black supremacy, as the KKK promotes white supremacy. And they do not espouse violence as the KKK does. They are encouraging blacks to assert their identity in self-governance. To be proud of who they are, not accept the status quo, and take control of their own destinies. Not through violencem but through improving their own condition and communities.

It is easy for us as whites, to misconstrue the inflamatory rhetoric in our own terms, rather than allowing them to define it themselves. What appears to us as "black separatism" is to them, not separatism, but asserting their own idetity and claiming their own stake in the American dream. Nothing I have seen in church videos, or news reports or explanations of their theology, supports the idea that they believe in purity of race, or separatism, or black supremacy. It is simply NOT THERE.

Understanding black anger and resentment, requires stepping out of our own skin temporarily, and walking in their shoes and seeing through their eyes, at least intellectually, because we cannot do so substantively.

Let's examine just two of Rev. Wright's remarks, which I confess, pissed me off to no end at first, but when I re-xamined them objectively, I find I still disagree with them, but it took MUCH of the heat away, and I find that white pastors have said the same thing, with little attention from the media, and certainly, little scrutiny.

------
"Our foreign policy caused the anger that led to 9-11"
------

This is Wright's position on 9-11. The words he used are "The chickens have come home to roost" This country colloquialism means simply "You reap what you sew"

This continually, has been exageratted beyond recognition, to where people are saying "Wright believes that the murder of thousands on 9-11 was justified."

That is NOT what he said. He is simply laying the blame for 9-11 on our foreign policy. Pat Robertson believes something VERY similar. Pat Robertson also believes that 9-11 was karmic in nature, only Robertson believes the sin in question, is not foreign policy, but homosexuality and abortion. So here is a black minister and a white minister BOTH claiming that 9-11 was something we brought upon ourselves, they merely disagree on what the reason for it was. And in all honesty, Wright's conclusion is much more rooted in reality than Robertson's is. But Wright gets labelled as the nut. I have seen whites here on these boards, Irminsul is one, and there have been many others, who also believe, as Wright does, that our foreign policy faux pas have caused the hatred that resulted in 9-11. They are only partially correct about this, in my assessment, as the issues are FAR deeper than foreign policy alone. But why does Wright get lambasted for his more realistic view, and Robertson, most certainly, has pastors across the nation agreeing with him?


-----
"God damn America"
-----

For God to "damn" something, is to "curse" it. Robertson and MANY other white ministers have said that America "is" being cursed by God (damned by God) or "will be" damned by God, rather than continue to receive his blessings, because we have legalized abortion and tolerated homosexual behavior in our nation.

When Wright says "It's in the Bible" he is saying "The Bible says that God will withold his blessing and curse (damn) the nation, that turns from his commandments and forgets God. For whites, this is biblical, only the supposedly deserved curses, are due to abortion and homosexuality, whereas Wright is more concerned with the sins against blacks, like our history of slavery and separatism, and even in the modern era, keeping them out of traditionally white bastians of power. It was only a short time ago that Augusta allowed blacks to compete in golf there. Since then, Tiger Woods, a black man, has won it many times. Why has there never been a black President or Vice President of this country? Are there no smart ones? None qualified? Why are we STILL , every year, seeing black firsts? The first black secretary of state, the first black whatever? We still have not had a black vice president or president, nor even, if I am not mistaken, a black speaker of the house. No black chief justice on the supreme court.

When Wright charges that "rich white people" control this country. Is he wrong? The first black billionaire in history occured as recently as 2001. Oprah is the first black female billionaire in history.

Some "RECENT" black firsts...


First black cabinet member - 1966

First black supreme court justice - 1967 (only one other - 2007)

First black mayor - 1967

First black female television host - 1986

First black woman mayor - 1991

First black elected governor - 1990 (only one other - 2007)

First black woman senator - 1992

First black nobel prize in literature - 1993

First black Masters golf winner - 1997

First black secretary of state - 2001

First Ivy league president - 2001

First black female oscar winner - 2001

First black gold medalist in winter games - 2002

First black billionaire - 2001

First black woman billionaire - 2003

First black solo flight around the world - 2007


Think about these things for a moment. Only 2 black elected governors in ALL of American history. Only 2 supreme court justices in ALL of American history. Only 5 black senators in ALL of American history.

Were no others qualified?

It has been a slow, arduous and even torturous journey, for African Americans to "begin" to realize equality in this country. Equal opportunities have been hard to come by. And because black advancement has been so blocked historically, there are limited role models for young black children to aspire to.

Can you trace your family history as immigrants? Many Americans, to some degree can, but ONLY blacks have the burden of knowing "Mine was forced to come here in chains on a slave ship"

How do you pride yourself as a man? Strong? Self sufficient? A go-getter? You can look to numerous icons in history for motivation and encouragement. What about black men? They were slaves. Their women were often mistresses for slave owners, and bore children to them. They could accept it or be strung up in trees. Black men have been emasculated throughout American history. That is the legacy they are escaping from. They were not even given the 40 acres and a mule they were promised. Slavery ends, and what happens? They either continue working for the slave owners, at a pay that kept them enslaved, or as many, if not most did, they gravitate toward the major cities for work, but still enduring racism and being held back.

Bro, as recently as the 1960's (and I was born in the sixties) blacks in many places were still made to drink from separate water fountains or ride at the back of the bus.

It has been in MY OWN LIFETIME that serious progress has only BEGUN to occur.

It is the height of selfishness for whites to proclaim "Get over it!"

But many still do.

The country is about 50% of each, but it seems that most the musicinas here are about 90% Democrat . . .
Is that the case?

Probably not. But Republicans are usually less confrontational about politics. Democrats are more vocal, and the more liberal among them, the louder they scream. LOL

But music would tend to lend itself to a more liberal thought. Music has often been groundbreaking, and used to motivate politically. Same with the media.

Fox just quoted a survey that only 6% (or was it 8%?) of journalists consider themselves "conservative"

I am conservative, especially on economic issues, but more mainstream or even liberal on social issues.

For example, morally, I don't believe homosexuality is a moral lifestyle. But I "DO" believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry. It is simply impossible, logically, to claim on one hand that they cannot be discriminated against in the workplace, but they "CAN" apparently, be discriminated in other areas of life. Namely health insurance and tax benefits that marriage usually provides. It should be illegal, to withold from homosexuals, the benefits readily available to heterosexual Americans, when federal law, assesses penalties agaiinst homosexual discrimination.

Our own government punishes those who discriminate against homosexuals, while simultaneously discriminating against them themselves.

How does that make sense?

It's interesting how all these threads are always about the democrats.
Republicans never enter into it, unless they are being bashed.
The country is about 50% of each, but it seems that most the musicinas here are about 90% Democrat . . .
Is that the case?

Actually that's not true. There are more Democrats than Republicans and that has long been the case - but over the last few elections the Republicans have come out and vote in greater numbers. More Democrats sit on their hands in elections, which is something as a Democrat that I'm not proud to say.

This is gonna be like throwing a gas bomb on the fire, but I'm gonna say it anway.

The clip of Rev. Wright that they are playing on the news (especially "fair and balanced FAUX SNOOZE) contains things that I cannot see how they can be refuted.

We (the USA) HAS sponsored state terrorism.

We (the USA) HAVE sponsored and aided dictators.

We (the USA) HAVE had a shitty, intrusive policy in the Middle East for decades.

We (the USA) HAVE helped denigrate, subjugate or dismiss the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people.


Anybody want to weight in on EXACTLY how or why the Rev. was wrong about any of that? Don't go off all defensive-like with a bunch of hysterionic blubbering bullshit - give me facts and specifics.

There are more Democrats than Republicans and that has long been the case

yeah, but take out LA,NYC,Detroit,Boston,Chicago,Philly,Phoenix,San Antonio,San Diego & Dallas cuz they don't count.

That should about make it fair..

there.

I'm still writing in Ron Paul.

High voter turnouts are a big problem for Republicans - some of their leaders have even admitted it.

That damn, damn democracy.

This scandal is not about Wright's rights (sorry) to say these things. It's about Obama's allegiance to an institution that espouses such hate. Regardless if there was any truth or not in Wright's diatribes misses the point; they were hate speech that further widened the chasm between the races in the U.S.

Craig Maxim said, " . . . Republicans are usually less confrontational about politics. Democrats are more vocal, and the more liberal among them, the louder they scream . . ."
.
So, you think republicans are less argumentative, and democrats are more so?
Why would that be?

This scandal is not about Wright's rights (sorry) to say these things. It's about Obama's allegiance to an institution that espouses such hate. Regardless if there was any truth or not in Wright's diatribes misses the point; they were hate speech that further widened the chasm between the races in the U.S.

This is my take on it...

As mentioned before, MANY blacks share the views of Rev. Wright. Is Obama to dismiss a large section of the black community along with Rev. Wright?

I suspect, that Obama accepted as an African American (though he is half and half) has pursued his political career, with an eye toward inner city constituents, and because he is black, he is embraced and supported by the black community.

It wouldn't necessarily alarm him to the degree of dropping out of his church, simply because his black minister espouses many of the beliefs that probably hundreds of other black ministers do as well.

Obama may have never believed, early on in his career, that he would be in the position he is now, to potentially become president. Likely, he took his career one day at a time, one political race at a time. He is offered the chance to give a speech at the Democratic convention, and it resonates with everyone. Suddenly, maybe even to his own surprise, he is a rising star for the Democrats. In no time flat, he is asked to run for President.

I think that he hoped, that the Rev. Wright association would not rise to the status that Fox has made it into. I don't think he was necessarily hiding from it, as much as he wanted to have a campaign that rose above race. To focus on issues, and not be elected merely because he was a black man.

Fox forced the issue into the open. Now he has no choice but to deal with the issue. But rather than merely dismissing the words of a single individual. He used the opportunity to enhance the dialogue. He knows Wright to be a scholar. He knows him to have built a church out of nothing, that has major ministries to the poor, the homeless, HIV/AIDS sufferers. He knows Wright to have served honorably in the Marines. He knows Wright to be the person that led him to faith in Jesus. He sees much more in Wright, than the 20 second sound bites we are force fed ALL day on Fox.

So he has a choice. Distance himself completely from Wright for political expediency, or follow his heart, which says to him "Wright is a good and decent man" and "Many black people feel the same way as Wright does".

Admirably, he chooses the latter and says...

"The anger at the government and rich white Americans, is not the domain of Wright alone, but MANY blacks feel this same anger, this same distrust of the government. Here is an opportunity for us ALL to better understand one another, because black anger is understandable, yet it holds us back from true equality, and white racism and elitism is real and still exists, but things have improved alot over the past 4 or 5 decades, and it is unfair to lay all the blame squarely at their feet any longer. Let's accept though, that there is a real, and HUGE divide, a chasm between the white and black experience, and therefore their worldview, and in accepting the legitimacy of concerns on both sides, let's seek common understanding and a way of moving into the future TOGETHER!"

That speech will go down as a watershed event in political history.

And not because of some "cleverness" of Obama, but because the ENTIRE country "IS" now, at this very moment, discussing and debating these issues. It is a historic chance to find common ground and move forward, in all seriousness, not seen since the Civil Rights movement began, some 40 to 50 years ago.

That speech was THAT important.

The blogs all over the net, and worldwide I might add, are literally exploding with comments and discussions on every potential side of this issue. I am seeing Europeans and Africans and Canadians and YOU NAME IT, all contributing to this discussion. Sadly, what I also see, is some of the most disgusting racist remarks, or at least clearly racist motivated comments, that I have EVER seen. Boy, they come out for something like this don't they? Their ignorance is astounding. They make Rev. Wright's comments PALE in comparison, and they out-do ANYTHING he has said, by leaps and bounds.

Who cares whether these whites speak this way normally in public. They're doing it now, because their closet racism has suddenly been exposed, and the hate they obviously always carry around, just silently in mixed company, is laid bare for all to see now. This hatred motivates their lives and actions, whether it is expressed publicly, or only with other whites who share such views. It is harmful and destructive. Thank God it is coming to light.

I say this thing backfires on Fox given a little time, and also backfires on ALL the racists who have been incited by Fox.

This nation will unite as never before, or it will divide as never before. I'm praying for the former.

So, you think republicans are less argumentative, and democrats are more so?
Why would that be?

Less "confrontational". This is only a generality mind you. Excluding the Sean Hannitys and especially people like Ann Coulter.

(as a funny aside, I forgot Ann's name for a moment, so I googled "conservative bitch" on a guess, and her name came up on the first page. I had a feeling it would. LOL)

Try it:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22conservative+bitch%22&btnG=Search

Anyway...

Liberalism is the domain of the young especially. Because young people are willing to try new things, to push boundaries, to challenge authority, hell... to challenge EVERYTHING and try ANYTHING, as long as it is different or new!

Liberals are also traditionally activists. (think 60's)

Combine those two things. Youthful combativeness with tireless activism, and you have a recipee for people who may speak their mind a little sooner than most, and a little more forcefully than most, and sometimes with less forethought than those with a little more experience.

This has only changed somewhat in the past few decades, due to Falwell's moral majority. Often referred to as a "silent majority", Falwell recognized that liberals were yelling from the rooftops often unchallenged, and he believed that there were likely a majority of Americans which had strong moral values in common (even in different religions) but which were not being heard, and he created a pseudo religious/political organization to give voice to those people he believed were there, but were too busy raising families and going to church to be vocal activists.

So, while television is still the domain of liberals, radio belongs to conservatives, and Fox has bitten into the television slightly.

I'm happy, because I can watch Fox and switch back and forth with CNN to figure out where the real truth is, which inevitably is somewhere between these two.

Craig Maxim, You said about Democrats,
" . . . youthful combativeness with tireless activism . . . a recipee for people who may speak their mind a little sooner than most, and a little more forcefully than most, and sometimes with less forethought than those with a little more experience."
.
Ok, I think see . . .
So, are you saying that the average Democrat may be speaking before thinking, and the average Republican, being older & more experienced, might be wiser?

This is gonna be like throwing a gas bomb on the fire, but I'm gonna say it anway.

The clip of Rev. Wright that they are playing on the news (especially "fair and balanced FAUX SNOOZE) contains things that I cannot see how they can be refuted.

We (the USA) HAS sponsored state terrorism.

We (the USA) HAVE sponsored and aided dictators.

We (the USA) HAVE had a shitty, intrusive policy in the Middle East for decades.

We (the USA) HAVE helped denigrate, subjugate or dismiss the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people.


Anybody want to weight in on EXACTLY how or why the Rev. was wrong about any of that? Don't go off all defensive-like with a bunch of hysterionic blubbering bullshit - give me facts and specifics.

All of those above statements are true, with exception of the palestinian quagmire. And even that, the USA foreign policy has some guilt by association to deal with.

But anyways...

I'm not going to go out and find 10 credible sources and cites for each of those points you bring up. First, it's time consuming. You obviously know how to use the internet, so go do your own homework. Second, this has been done to death. I post regularly on another political site and this is the usual strawman, people like you ask for credible proof, and then when presented with it, just completely denounce it with shameless rhoetoric without actually addressing the facts, or you just never respond, and then 3 months later, it comes up and you demand sources and cites again.

Again, it's been done to death.