I remember the day after the Election, a friend of mine who happens to be white, remarked on social media that he "finally wasn't embarrassed of America and our President."
I sprained my eyes rolling them and they have never fully recovered.
Since then I've heard this sentiment echoed by more white folks than I can count, especially in recent months; supposed relief at once again having a leader who instills pride.
Since I don't have the time to ask each of the individually, I'll ask here:
So, you were embarrassed for the past 8 years, huh?
Really?
What exactly were you embarrassed by?
Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he's never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?
Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?
Were you embarrassed by his Columbia University degree in Political Science or his graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School?
Maybe you were embarrassed by his white American and Black Kenyan parents, or the diversity he was raised in as normal?
Were you embarrassed by his eloquence, his quick wit, his easy humor, his seeming comfort meeting with both world leaders and street cleaners; by his bright smile or his sense of empathy or his steadiness - perhaps by his lack of personal scandals or verbal gaffes or impulsive tirades?
No. Of course you weren't.
Honestly, I don't believe you were ever embarrassed. That word implies an association that brings ridicule, one that makes you ashamed by association, and if that's something you claim to have experienced over the past eight years by having Barack Obama representing you in the world - I'm going to suggest you rethink your word choice.
You weren't "embarrassed" by Barack Obama.
You were threatened by him. You were offended by him.You were challenged by him.You were enraged by him.
But I don't believe it had anything to do with his resume or his experience or his character or his conduct in office - because you seem fully proud right now to be associated with a three-time married, serial adulterer and confessed predator; a man whose election and business dealings and relationships are riddled with controversy and malfeasance. You're perfectly fine being represented by a bullying, obnoxious, genitalia-grabbing, Tweet-ranting, Prime Minister-shoving charlatan who's managed to offend all our allies in a few short months. And you're okay with him putting on religious faith like a rented, dusty, ill-fitting tuxedo and immediately tossing it in the garbage when he's finished with it.
None of that you're embarrassed of? I wonder how that works.
Actually, I'm afraid I have an idea. I hope I'm wrong.
Listen, you're perfectly within your rights to have disagreed with Barack Obama's policies or to have taken issue with his tactics. No one's claiming he was a flawless politician or a perfect human being. But somehow I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I think the thing President Obama did that really upset you, white friend - was having a complexion that was far darker than you were ever comfortable with. I think the President we have now feels much better.
Because objectively speaking, if what's happening in our country right now doesn't cause you great shame and doesn't induce the continual meeting of your palm to your face - I don't believe embarrassment is ever something you struggle with.
No, if you claimed to be "embarrassed" by Barack Obama but you're not embarrassed by Donald Trump - I'm going to strongly suggest it was largely a pigmentation issue.
And as an American and a Christian committed to diversity and equality and to the liberty at the heart of this nation - that, embarrasses me
The one thing I've learned in life my friends, is that the more I get to know people, the more I like my animals....
I believe that the one thing all folks around the world should be embarrassed about, is that even in this day & age, around 18,000 people die each day from malnutrition & preventable diseases.
Just 3% of the US-of-A's defense budget would see everyone world-wide well-fed, & educated in schools.
We have plenty to be embarrassed about when we continue to let this happen IMO, regardless of which puppet is elected into power.
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
I had no problem with Obamas color, most of us on the right didn't/don't. (not a racist or bigoted bone in my body) But up comes the "you didn't like Obama because he is black" ALL THE TIME. BTW he is half white and YES he has a problem with that.
Who knows about Columbia, except for one person claimed he did no one remembers him at all. One instructor says every single student goes thru him, never saw him. Harvard? Who knows, every single thing about him has been and is still sealed. Got student aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia? Both Obamas and Klintoons lost their ability to practice law. CT SSN#? and never lived there? Oh yea, momma worked for SS. Bad selective service number?
I just did not and still do not like him. Far left policies, supply terrorists arms and money, open borders, MS13 let in, refugees get twice the benefits a disabled veteran gets in cash not to mention housing, medical. Kiss every foreigners ass and screw America. No, just did not like him. 2008 inaug speech, "Lets be honest people, there is no way I can fulfill all the promises I made in my campaign" Obama and honesty in the same sentence?
Good thing now is we have a president who has balls and a first lady who doesn't!
At this point, we have no way of knowing who Barack Obama really is.
Everything surrounding his birth is highly suspicious. He has never produced a live birth certificate, after all these years and all the doubts raised about whether or not he was a natural US citizen.
Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan Muslim who was known for being a con artist, is obviously his officially recognized father, which is suspicious enough already.
But on top of the doubts of his birthplace, theories have arisen as to whether or not Obama is even his real father. Frank Davis and Malcom X are among those speculated to be Obama Jrs real dad, as well as Muhammed Subud, the founder of the Subud cult of which Obamas supposed mother, Ann Dunham, was a member.
People have put composites of Subud and Obama together, speculating that the likeness between Obama and Subud indicate he could have been Obamas real father.
Hes also had several different names, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barry Obama, Steven Dunham , Barry Soetoro, which just adds to the mystery of who Obama really is.
What kind of normal person changes their names this many times?
Then there is the matter of Loretta Fuddy, the woman called to verify the birth certificate of Obamas supposed Hawaiian birth by the White House (although there is still no record of his birth in any hospital on Oahu, where he was supposedly born.)
DC Clothesline reports This alleged cover up was again in the limelight a short time ago when a small passenger plane crash took the life of Loretta Fuddy. Since that time we have found that Fuddy was also involved in the Subud Cult that Ann Dunham was involved with. When you combine that with the fact that it was Fuddy who finally delivered the Certificate of Live Birth to The White House, the theories are readily abundant.
They also point to a recent interview given by a former British Intelligence official, who has obtained a photograph that blows the possibility of Dunham being Obamas real mother completely out of the water.
In an interview on Mark Gillars Tea Party Power Hour, Michael Shrimpton says that the CIA is in possession of a photograph that proves that Dunham could not be Obamas birth mother. Why? Because a photo was taken of her at the beach just one month before Barack Obamas birth and she was not pregnant at the time, DC Clothesline explains.
This is not the first accusation of Stanley Ann Dunham being a fake. In June of 2013 John Gaultier posted a photo that could prove that her social security number is fraudulent. Basically the application was submitted in 1959 on a form that was revised in 1965, they add.
Now that Obama has come and gone from the White House, there is no way of rectifying all the damage done by electing someone so mysterious, and possibly not even American, to the White House. But he does leave behind a legacy apparently as deceptive of his identity itself.
I enjoy it too, but I've got to tell ya, sources like Breitbart or Red State "News" to me isn't even the least bit credible and gives me the giggles when people try to present them as such. Lets both try and find unbiased sources to back up our claims, otherwise we are doing nothing but creating little fake realities for ourselves that make us comfortable. I would imagine that if I were to post something by MSNBC you'd claim it must be fake because most of their hosts are liberals. Just as I would say about Fox hosts being conservative.
Let me suggest a few, and if you have a problem with any of them based on actual proof of mis-reporting due to bias let me know:
Associated Press, BBC, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CSPAN.
While the aforementioned will not make an effort to be friendly to the current administration, they also have a history of reporting bad things about Dems too, and seem to make an actual effort to remain neutral and generally confirm with multiple sources before publishing a story, which is how news should be.
I am aware that the NY times for example has a liberal leaning EDITORIAL board, but I would submit that their actual news stories are generally very well sourced, and often end up being confirmed by other news outlets.
I have an actual desire to elevate the debate, and this is the only way I can think to do so, your thoughts?
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 27th of May 2018 12:57:25 AM
Maybe some news from these people will help ya'll balance out your thoughts ?...
Cheers,
Rastus
NB couterpunch@counterpunch.org is pretty good too.
-- Edited by Rastus on Sunday 27th of May 2018 03:14:32 AM
__________________
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
Actually I've never heard of Collective Evolution either. While they may have truth to tell, I have no idea what their journalistic standards are so we should probably adhere to the big name outlets who have well established standards of multiple independent source confirmation before publishing. That way the playing field will be level and we can actually try to start a truth based debate.
I enjoy it too, but I've got to tell ya, sources like Breitbart or Red State "News" to me isn't even the least bit credible and gives me the giggles when people try to present them as such. Lets both try and find unbiased sources to back up our claims, otherwise we are doing nothing but creating little fake realities for ourselves that make us comfortable. I would imagine that if I were to post something by MSNBC you'd claim it must be fake because most of their hosts are liberals. Just as I would say about Fox hosts being conservative.
Let me suggest a few, and if you have a problem with any of them based on actual proof of mis-reporting due to bias let me know:
Associated Press, BBC, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CSPAN.
While the aforementioned will not make an effort to be friendly to the current administration, they also have a history of reporting bad things about Dems too, and seem to make an actual effort to remain neutral and generally confirm with multiple sources before publishing a story, which is how news should be.
I am aware that the NY times for example has a liberal leaning EDITORIAL board, but I would submit that their actual news stories are generally very well sourced, and often end up being confirmed by other news outlets.
I have an actual desire to elevate the debate, and this is the only way I can think to do so, your thoughts?
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 27th of May 2018 12:57:25 AM
I would prefer credible unbiased sources too! Hard to find sometimes. I do check Reuters once a day, Pew seems unbiased. Times and Post, well sometimes I do have a problem with them but could be their hate of this admin. 91% of news in all MSM is anti Trump.
My issue is that all too often unconfirmed conspiracy theories are made to look like news and published without any independent source confirmation. Often this is done on websites which don't even have any real investigative reporters on staff. Such things are not news regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. They may make us feel good and confirm our own biases, but they have no place in a truth based debate, which is the only kind I will engage in. This is why I will not involve myself in the thread titled "Real time news from Clarity" and pretty much avoid the entire DH section.
My issue is that all too often unconfirmed conspiracy theories are made to look like news and published without any independent source confirmation. Often this is done on websites which don't even have any real investigative reporters on staff. Such things are not news regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. They may make us feel good and confirm our own biases, but they have no place in a truth based debate, which is the only kind I will engage in. This is why I will not involve myself in the thread titled "Real time news from Clarity" and pretty much avoid the entire DH section.
That happens with MSM alot too, especially CNN. Someone recommended licenses for journalists. Not a bad idea, you print fake news, you lose it.
My issue is that all too often unconfirmed conspiracy theories are made to look like news and published without any independent source confirmation. Often this is done on websites which don't even have any real investigative reporters on staff. Such things are not news regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. They may make us feel good and confirm our own biases, but they have no place in a truth based debate, which is the only kind I will engage in. This is why I will not involve myself in the thread titled "Real time news from Clarity" and pretty much avoid the entire DH section.
That thread is kinda a general news thread from everyone but I understand. I rather we all integrate in one area. Diff between here and DH, they were very uncivil. Different here, think we could have some good discussions.
We have to consider that "news reporters" work for wages, & are under instruction / told / edited so that their "stories" conform to the "status-quo" of the employer etc etc. This means that sometimes ( read often ) the real truth is not exposed / released, & that these same reporters, have to sometimes reveal the facts using an assumed-name / alias.
Anyhow, all I'm suggesting is to survey the whole, so that you can then draw a line somewhere in the middle, to get some direction of where the truth actually lay.
Counterpunch offers some really interesting arguments, that make perfect sense, as the results of our leaders actions prove themselves again & again.
In a country where everyone sues everyone's asses, I suggest the truth is very difficult to find...
Once again, following the trail of death & destruction reveals where-it's-all-at. The rest "is" Hollywood screen-play IMO.
Enough said, know better than to get involved here lol...Just grabbing some popcorn lol !
Cheers,
Rastus
-- Edited by Rastus on Sunday 27th of May 2018 07:26:29 PM
-- Edited by Rastus on Sunday 27th of May 2018 07:26:48 PM
__________________
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
That thread is kinda a general news thread from everyone but I understand. I rather we all integrate in one area. Diff between here and DH, they were very uncivil. Different here, think we could have some good discussions.
Youre damn right about being uncivil at DH. Ive been posting with Bad Robot and Falcon elsewhere. All forum formats have changed. Falcon and I are having a hard time with the new forums...Neither he or BadRobot were ever uncivil towards people, but, I WAS! LOL robot is digging the place, probably because City isnt stalking him with 50 million questions.
it has been a challenge but at least Im not as hooked like DH. That place was like a Cheers bar, a place to go where everybody knew your name.
Shit, I didn't think robot would block anyone much less you.
Agreed! It was no doubt a mistake. if I remember correctly, Stan and Horace did post on CE&P very much until the end.
ive got to crack up about this, but the handyman doing some repairs the house is named Forest. Every time I call him by name, Horace comes out of my mouth. Its so embarrassing. He keeps saying, just remember Forrest Gump
but it doesnt work. Horace comes out my mouth every time. Ugh.
Shit, I didn't think robot would block anyone much less you.
Agreed! It was no doubt a mistake. if I remember correctly, Stan and Horace did post on CE&P very much until the end.
ive got to crack up about this, but the handyman doing some repairs the house is named Forest. Every time I call him by name, Horace comes out of my mouth. Its so embarrassing. He keeps saying, just remember Forrest Gump
but it doesnt work. Horace comes out my mouth every time. Ugh.
There was just something about her that seemed fishy to me from the get go. First off, she told you all her first name (I forget was she said) but when Cafe referred to his friend/caregiver ...her name was Joyce. The names were different.
I will shut up about that subject now and step down from my soap box.