<p>Me, too! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>trivia side note: in Rocky I, Apollo Creed won the fight (remember, Rocky was just glad he didn’t get knocked out).</p>
<p>Now, back to the candidatorial debate…</p>
<p>Man, I loved those old Rocky movies!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ilsa–That’s probably because things are pretty scary these days, both economically and internationally. There’s no guarantee that either Obama or McCain will be able to handle the enormously challenging job that lies ahead. All we can do is hope. … In my Pollyanna way, I’d like to believe that either one of them would represent a significant improvement over what we have now.</p>
<p>Oh Bullet - you’re right technically, but didn’t it seem like Rocky was the winner. Man, I’m starting to not like that analogy very much. 
haha!</p>
<p>Must think positive! :)</p>
<p>Hindy - post #399: Right! As IF!!</p>
<p>Hindoo, this is from Drudge
</p>
<p>It is not about McCain not inviting, it is about how the media reacts to Obama. If you look at the amt of coverage Obama is getting it is about 2 to 1! Gee didn’t Hillary complain about the media bias also!</p>
<p>The funny thing is the media is reporting on how they are not reporting on McCain at the same rate as Obama, but yet they still dont report about McCain, instead they acknowledge that ABC aired 118 minutes of Obama compared to 44 minutes of McCain! That should make anyone shake their head and wonder who is policing the media!</p>
<p>I wonder how much of this excessive Obama coverage has been negative? As I’ve said before, the media seems to swing wildly back and forth between adoring him and reviling him. I know that during the height of the Rev. Wright drama, it was a 24/7 media spectacular–none of it good for Obama. They also went wild with his “clinging to guns and religion” remark, dwelling on that for days. … So, he does get a lot of coverage, but it’s a double-edged sword.</p>
<p>I can’t recall much of anything neg about Obama on the networks. Cable news has been more objective.</p>
<p>Haven’t verified this myself, but I * heard* that one of the major networks actually has an Obama Campaign HQ in their offices. I’ll have to research that a bit more, b/c if it’s true, then any hope of McCain getting equitable treatment is futile.</p>
<p>Can McCain (or any candidate) win when the media is against him? JM does like being the “underdog”, but media bias would be a HUGE factor to overcome.</p>
<p>Oh if only the populace were savvy enough to recognize & discount media manipulation!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The term “slavery”, as you use it here, is misleading. You imply that all slavery is equal when in fact it is not. In ancient Europe, for example, slavery, though at times brutal, was not chronically attached to race. Slaves could marry, maintain families, own property, learn the common language, become educated. They could and often did rise beyond the slave class and become regular citizens and leaders. Also, European slavery did not take people of disparate and often warring ethnicities and then force them into a new, history-less, nameless, and ignorant people. Slavery was often fueled by war, where large numbers of conquered people of the same ethnicity were carried away and sold in markets by the conquerors. This is why Spartacus, a slave, was so successful in his revolt against the Romans. He spoke the same language, shared the same outlook, had essentially the same values and identity as his fellow slaves so that they together saw themselves as a united people within a people. It is also why the Haitian slave revolt was so intense and successful. The French tended to gather huge groups of blacks from the same tribes and villages. This allowed the slaves to retain their dignity as a united people. Humans can endure anything, can overcome anything, if only they have these things. In the American brand of slavery, none of these things existed.</p>
<p>Slavery itself, as a general concept, is not what harmed blacks. Would to God the whites had simply enslaved us and then helped us learn and appreciate their culture. We would have been fine. But that is not what happened. What makes us different is the particular sort of slavery we endured. It is a slavery that literally forged us a nation in ignorance and repression. Whites disallowed our existence with others of our ethnicities. They deliberately made us buffoons, forcing us to speak a laughable dialect of English that separated us culturally from them, that distinguished us as buffoons to be laughed at while also allowing us to communicate with our owners. We were unable to speak to one another, unless it was in the clownish dialect. We could not take solace in our traditions and religion. We could not share and take pride in any history because we never shared a history in the first place. We eventually became millions of different black peoples without tradition, without language, without knowledge of any heritage at all, except the pain of slavery. To justify our mistreatment, whites then declared by its laws that we were naturally inferior to them and therefore unworthy of being treated as equals. Indeed, we were fit only to be property. And this state of being was attached to our race. Unlike other groups, we have no country, except the country that hated us such that it reduced us to nothing. This is the uniting heritage and identity that all American blacks share. It is why we have so many issues today.</p>
<p>Now, I don’t say any of this to try to cause guilt. You didn’t create the mess, though you and all whites benefit of it even today. I say it because it is simply the truth. I am proud of blacks for our having endured it, and proud we have survived its aftermath. I also am pleased that my history, such as it is, gives me no reason to tell myself jingoistic lies about America. I can see the country with a sober mind, love its greatness, and condemn its flaws all with one breath.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Slavery has changed over the centuries, having been influenced by European slavery. But African slavery at the time the Europeans arrived was quite a bit different from what we now think of when we use the term “slavery”. African slavery was more akin to serfdom. There was no racial component, and so slavery was not attached to heredity. Slaves could marry and own property. They could marry even into the families of their owners. Also, slaves were set free after a term. The issue causing the difficulty, once again, is not “slavery” in the generic sense. It is the particular brand of slavery used in America, the way America took humans and gutted them of their humanness, even declaring them less than human as a justification for its actions. That is what causes the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a distinction without a difference, since those whites established the institution and since their descendants simply changed their names and allegiances; not the institution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, this is not true. Africans had little concept of slavery in the European sense until European slavery was fairly well developed. They thought of slavery as they had practiced it. They had no imagination for the sort of monstrous commercialization of human souls as property that drove Europeans. By the time African leaders discovered the ramifications of slavery to themselves, many aimed to cease the trade, but were then pressured into it by Europeans who threatened to arm their enemies with weaponry. There were some African leaders who pressed for the continuation of slavery, but generally what happened between Africans and Europeans was the sort of exploitation that took place between Europeans and Indians. The culture with superior knowledge hid its knowledge so that it could exploit, not help, the inferior culture.</p>
<p>Secondly, and once again, it was not slavery that caused our problem. I could easily work as a slave, even enduring whips, chains, and hard work, if at the end of the day I could pray to the God of my fathers and harken back to some aspect of my people not associated with my oppression. I could especially do this if I knew I would be later freed and allowed to enjoy the new culture. Indeed, I could possibly view my time of enslavement as a price to pay for my passage to new opportunity, quite like an indentured servant. What I cannot survive, what no human can survive, is what happened to blacks in America – the systematic destruction of what makes humans human, so that they are left to wander in their minds about not only who, but what they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea what you are talking about. This white majority has been operating against blacks since 1619, virulently since 1640. Colonial and later American government understood what the white majority was and executed law based on it. If I cannot use the term “white majority”, then by what term can I refer to those who were on the comfortable end of the knife of history?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And they now benefit of being white, since they were allowed to step into a world built by forced black labor for whites, and since the majority has historically trounced the minority by a thousand ways, many of them small and apparently insignificant, but very important.</p>
<p>Today I read a thread here, for example, begun for men. It was a humorous thread where men were to talk about “manly” things. The thread in a sense set up “The Duke” as its role model. Well, I am far more manly than The Duke. So it made no sense to me to honor in this way a racist fake and a fraud. Yet there were all these guys celebrating their manliness with the white draft-dodging, racist fake as their man. The majority has always done this, and can do it, by default explaining to kids who look like me that men who look like them are not exactly suitable models of manhood. It is like this for black kids all over America, and yet whites take it for granted. Of course Superman is white, and so is God Himself. Everybody, even blacks, know this. It means that to get along with whites black fathers must accept the white model, and that is exactly what has typically happened. Well, not in my home. When my daughters and sons think of a real man, they think of me. It means my kids are necessarily different because they are completely unimpressed by the totally weak and foolish nonsense that most American kids think of as manly. I think we blacks need to think about these sorts of essential issues and then live more deliberately to show our kids superior alternatives to fakes like John Wayne, and the black buffoons that have been set before us as models.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have the luxury of rejecting the notion despite that it is the demonstrable truth that has operated in America since the beginning. I have no such luxury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You cannot eliminate these generalizations by just ignoring them. We all know what a white person is, you see, and we are all conditioned to place a certain set of assumptions upon white people, a gift of history. We are all conditioned to do this, though white people as the partitioned group the term implies, literally do not exist in nature. Though they do not exist, we still know who they are because, like it or not, we have all be conditioned to recognize them. We also know those who are not them. This has been true in America since 1619, and it continues to this day.</p>
<p>Dross, explain the reasoning behind this please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this an economic benefit? Is this a social/cultural benefit? A political one?</p>
<p>I would guess that purely from an economics point of view it’s highly negative. Considering the huge war that occurred over slavery. And all events since then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dross, As the guy responsible for the Man Cave, please allow me to apologize if you’re offended by our respect for John Wayne’s “Hollywood image”. I hope you can see that the scope of the entire thread is in fun, but I can also see your point. We are not honoring the man, we are respecting the image he portrays on film, which has become an icon.<br>
I have personnally met, shook-hands, sat down and shared a few drinks with several members of the Tuskegee Airmen, in total awe the whole time. I would be proud to do so again. These men will always have a place reserved for them in the Man Cave, as well as a spot for you…</p>
<p>Moderator Note: Ladies and Gentlemen: I have removed a number of posts which violate our courtesy Terms, or are ad hominem attacks rather than substantive arguments, or are responses to same.</p>
<p>If the thread continues in this vein, we will have to close it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um. There’s enough policing in this country already… The media should bend to the will of the people. They are there to get ratings. If Obama gain ratings and McCain doesn’t then they will cover more of Obama. It just so happens that Obama is still a novelty. </p>
<p>I personally am happy to see him on tv speaking so much as well. it’s only a matter of time before someone asks that wrong question at the wrong time and then we’ll find out what he’s made of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, Bizzy! Obama’s various misspeaks and faux pas’ have been splattered all over the news since the start of the campaign! (Though I can’t debate your point on networks vs. cable, since I almost never watch network news. I keep informed through Keith Olbermann–just KIDDING!!) I recall that McCain was gleefully dragged through the media mud for several days after that NY Times story about his alleged “relationship” with a lobbyist, and he’s been mocked occasionally here and there on news programs. But for the most part, Obama has been the main focus of both praise and venom. I’ll continue to maintain that media coverage is a double-edged sword. It gives candidates “face-time,” but not necessarily the kind they’d like to have.</p>
<p>^^ Well let’s see how objective the media is regarding O’s upcoming “tour & stage show”. Positive or negative, however, it’s all hype. (“Stir up the enthusiasm - yeah, that’s the ticket!”). You know how it goes. BHO is nothing more than a “media creation” and I pray that his empty suit is revealed before November.</p>
<p>“Empty suit” or “Emperor w/ no clothes” - take your pick - either way, he’s seriously lacking.</p>
<p>The big positive I see about O’s candidacy is that I feel it demonstrates that America IS willing to overlook race now. Given that he is a candidate for the highest office in the land, I would hope that it really really reflects the fact that race truly is not an issue for most Americans.</p>
<p>I love the fact that BHO is a candidate (even tho’ I would prefer he were more experienced and of course, not so liberal!), but that doesn’t mean he should actually get elected - based on his lack of qualifications, not race.</p>
<p>I hope you’re wrong, bz. After having an empty-suit in the oval office for eight years, we desperately need a president with substance, ideas, and integrity. I feel that Obama might be that person–but one never knows until after the fact. For example, while I was disappointed when Bush was “elected” for the first time, I had no idea he would become the nightmare he turned out to be. Hopefully, fingers-crossed, either Obama or McCain will represent a positive change for a country desperately in need of good leadership.</p>
<p>Agree Hindoo. It was a travesty that McCain wasn’t elected in 2000, and I have no doubt that we would be in much better shape presently if he had been. </p>
<p>Which brings up one of my earlier points that McCain - more than any other person - would’ve been eyeing Bush’s decisions & actions over the past 8 yrs. with an extremely critical eye. McCain will know - best of ALL - how to correct Bush’s mistakes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are absolutely 100% in agreement on this. </p>
<p>Also, my loathing of Bush began back in 2000 when he signed-off on Rove’s lying, sliming ad campaign against McCain in South Carolina. I was later disappointed that McCain seemed to forgive him. Guess I’m not a “turn-the-other-cheek” kind of gal.</p>
<p>^Drosselmeier - I tip my hat to you for the thoughtful, persuasive post.</p>
<p>No time right now to write a response (and I do have one) - just time for a quick compliment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please explain to me the substance that Obama has! His political resume is thinner than GW’s! </p>
<p>I am voting for McCain, but honestly I want to see Obama win. I am so sick and tired of the dems blaming Bush and the republicans that I am at the point of saying dems have at it! You can have the hill and the house, let’s see how you do!</p>
<p>My prediction…any candidate on the campaign with 300 foreign policy advisors (20 teams) will have a bloated fed. and we will be stuck in the bowels of beauracracy!</p>
<p>Oh, you cynic, you! I said that no one really knows how good (or substantial) a president will be until they’re in office. I’m hoping with all of my heart that whoever is elected will rise to the occasion heroically and nobly!</p>