The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'

I just can't buy this. Obama threw his grandmother under a bus to get his point across.

As he stated, she sacrificed so much, loved him so much and worked so hard to make a better life for him and then in public makes a statement, that shows her disrespect and then turns around and talks about how she is family and he couldn't cut her loose.

Here is another issue of how he wants to have it both ways.

There have been years and years of people talking about bridging the gap of race and my question is: What would Obama bring new to this conversation that hasn't already ready been brought?

Obama's grandmother apparently was a loving person, who was racially insensitive or even bigoted at times. Obama was citing her as a victim of her time, like his Pastor. I didn't get the sense that he loved her less for that or that he threw her under a bus.

There were many new things in the speech from the tone to specific instances of which the grandmother example was one. I can't imagine any of the usual pro-black public advocates coming up with anything like this.

One of the main things for me and I'm sure for many white guys is that here is a black guy understanding how some white folk just don't relate to the historical injustice done to black people in the States. Not accepting the lack of emphathy for black anger, but at least identifying it without indignation as a fact and a problem to be bridged.

I still think it was an excellent speech.
 
Senator Obama was interviewed this morning on Good Morning America,Terry Moran asked what Obama would think if Terry had a KKK speaker in his church Obama Replies;The KKK comdemns all black people,Rev Wright only attacked "RICH WHITE PEOPLE"!Very nice[-X
 
great speech - not sure how anyone can listen to it - and not think so

this is not to say that everything in there was genuine or even accurate

the guy can flat out give speeches

the way he turned a negative - him supporting that cretin - into a dialogue about race relations - is amazing

hillary can't do that

mccain can't do that

very few people can

or at least very few people running for office

what i don't get is .........

he did hear his pastor say those vile things - and he's just denouncing it now? he didn't talk to him about it?

he compares the pastor to his grandma - nah - grandma is family - i don't get that

he didn't come clean on this until he HAD to - don't like that

don't think he's been very forthcoming honestly

but the speech

amazing

the guy is a wizard for sure

wonder what happens poll/election wise
 
Delivering a good speech is hardly enough. The part of the speach so vaunted by the liberal press could be interpreted as an evasion, a way of not responding to the issues which mandated the speech, to wit: where does he actrully stand on the specific matters his pastor ranted about: whites invented the aids virus to kill blacks; 9/11 was something we had coming to us; God Damn America, USAKKK " etc. The fact is, nothing can justify an alleged Christian Pastor in fomenting race hatred, and that is what he did. Obama wanted Imus fired for his stupid remark, he damned Ferraro for alleged racism -- her remark was racial, not racist -- but he can't see fit to plainly condemn his pastors raving racial hatred. Yes, in his speech he said some worthy things, but I do not see him as the genuine article who would give actual content to the words.
 
big guy,

As a matter of fact, Sen. Obama did explicitly condemn Rev. Wright's incendiary statements. Go back and listen to the speech again. You didn't get it all the first time.

As Faulkner had one of his characters say, "The past isn't even passed." But we move forward toward a shared future whether we iron out the disagreements or not. There's no avoiding that. The speech implied something like a statute of repose--that all that was behind us, and we're now moving forward into that shared future. The purpose of the campaign is to make things better for those whose situations aren't so good regardless of the beneficiaries of that bright new day.
 
^ He stated he disagreed with Wright's anti-Americanism, and stated why.

He stated he disagreed with Wright's racism, dismissed arguments against Ferraro's statement, and stated why.

If you were blinders and have preconceptions, you'll see and hear whatever you want. It is evident you need to take off your blinders if you want to be taken serious on this discussion. I have looked over Rush's response, and not surprised I see it in your post. You're a Republican partisan, as your random appearances here have proven. At least Midnight has the capacity to open eyes and realize he's party to a sham and attempts to redeem himself.

get over urself IC

u have nerve attacking a poster cuz he thinks obama's speech wasn't all that

obama actually referenced ferrero in his speech not by name - and not kindly - thought that was lame

as for reference to midnight - u gotta be kidding

how patronizing can u be

answer: very
 
Kennyworth? You hijacked chance's account? :rolleyes: To tell someone to "get over" themselves is to imply that they were speaking highly about themselves---care to show where I've EVER, seriously, done that here?

I have nerve attacking bad arguments, which I did.

WHAT? What's lame with this? How is this 'not kindly'?

No, he's a Republican who is against his party, against this war, and is supporting what is supposedly the most liberal Senator for president. That's pretty big. To be fair, people can point to you as being the same as a Democrat, as you well know.

Explain.

by speaking down - to big guy - ur speaking highly of urself - yeah - u did and u are

referencing midnight "at least midnight has the capacity" is speaking down - again - yeah - u did

as for obama/ferrero he referenced her as the type of person who will never allow change in america - that is how i remember it - not by name - maybe i will look for it

promise me u will never write "at least chance .............."

so i say yet again

get over urself

i could say that im sure im not alone in my assessment .......

but i wont
 
^ u need to get .................

;)

yes
 
I'm afraid "distancing" himself from those statements and the issue is not enough. Everyone knows now that he had to have been listening to that drivel for years.
 
I'm afraid "distancing" himself from those statements and the issue is not enough. Everyone knows now that he had to have been listening to that drivel for years.

So what is enough for you gaybot?

And are you prepared to insist on the same standard for every candidate? A uniform standard is certainly not part of the discourse here.

To be sure, many of the things Wright said are offensive, repugnant, and representative of a strain of thought outside mainstream American political thought.

McCain has gotten some heat about Rev. Hagee and some of the other right-wing preachers he has courted -- but nothing like the media mania over Wright's comments. His "God Damn America!" screech is getting as much play as Howard Dean's ill-fated scream did 4 years ago.

And what of Romney? He was asked about some tenets of the Mormon faith -- but not with this fervor. His questions came with the comparatively tame implication that he needed to distance himself from some teachings of his faith, but not actually denounce or quit the church.

And what about the treatment of Roman Catholic politicians? Shouldn't Ted Kennedy or Geraldine Ferraro be pressured to denounce the Pope for his mysoginist or anti-gay teachings? Shouldn't Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa be asked why he does not repudiate Cardinal Roger Mahoney for his enabling attitude toward pedophile priests? For that matter, shouldn't all Catholic politicians be asked how they can remain members of a church that tolerated and covered up generations of sexual abuse of minors?

If you are not going to demand that all Catholic politicians denounce and leave the church, I can't see how you expect Obama to do anything more than he has.
 
^^^ That's an exceptionally good point and utterly fair. Some tenets of Mormonism are outrageous (not to mention that it was founded on the genocide of Native Americans). Catholicism, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm a former Catholic and altar boy) has a hell of a lot to answer for and has caused untold suffering and still does. If we require that every politician who belongs to a religion which has repugnant elements resign or disavow that affiliation, we'd be left with atheists and agnostics (which is fine with me). But because Wright is flamboyantly and publicly obnoxious and toxic, while Mahoney, et al, are part of the power elite, Obama is held to a separate standard.
 
He is one hell of a speaker...

Now I wonder who the writer is
 
Well David, shutting your ears to the past, has never been prudent. The roots of affirmative action, are deeply embedded in the rancid soil of guilt incurred in the dim dark past. Until we address the wrongs that causes the guilt, we will never overcome the problems.

The fact that our educations didn't address the guilt of past wrongs, does not make it easy for us to even understand from which well our guilt is drawn. Showing the horror of conditions slaves were subject to, the sardine can transport ships, in which only a moderate number survived, the separation from family in Africa, the mixing of traditional enemy clans, the breeding programs for improved stock, the legally enforced withholding of education, the terrorizing of blacks seeking freedom in the land that had declared them to be equal and deserving of the same rights of all men, and then after they were freed by proclamation and promised 40 acres and a mule, nothing was forth coming but third class citizenship, and economically except another form of survival slavery, only partially provides the truth.

After one of the most deadly wars in history and the only war fought on the soil of this land, the blood of millions, only sufficed to fan the flames of hatred and terror. Generations thought it proper and right that men and women of color should should be taxed to vote, and be pleased to ride in the back of buses, and drink from different fountains and shit in different toilets, and be marginally educated in rundown schools, segregated (still in my lifetime) from us whites. So your blinders to the past, are in fact, not for something that happened 200 years ago (although that number is a wholly inadequate time frame) but things that have happened within living memory of a majority of Americans.

So your position is one of ignorance to say the least. You ought to crack a history book, or failing that, Google or Wikipedia some time frame information before you put your blinders to the past on permanently.

I already know about all that. I just think it would be more productive to focus on what's going on now. I've heard about slavery from the media and academia far more times than about racial profiling in traffic stops. Blacks have to avoid going down certain roads in certain suburbs in my area.

I understand that slavery lead up to that, but to be completely honest, being made to feel as if I should have a guilt trip about it when neither I or my ancestors had anything to do with it has made me want to block people out when they speak about it.

I was sympathetic when I first heard about it. I also think the Inquisition was a terrible thing. But things are still happening that get less focus and deserve more.
 
So what is enough for you gaybot?

And are you prepared to insist on the same standard for every candidate? A uniform standard is certainly not part of the discourse here.

To be sure, many of the things Wright said are offensive, repugnant, and representative of a strain of thought outside mainstream American political thought.

McCain has gotten some heat about Rev. Hagee and some of the other right-wing preachers he has courted -- but nothing like the media mania over Wright's comments. His "God Damn America!" screech is getting as much play as Howard Dean's ill-fated scream did 4 years ago.

And what of Romney? He was asked about some tenets of the Mormon faith -- but not with this fervor. His questions came with the comparatively tame implication that he needed to distance himself from some teachings of his faith, but not actually denounce or quit the church.

And what about the treatment of Roman Catholic politicians? Shouldn't Ted Kennedy or Geraldine Ferraro be pressured to denounce the Pope for his mysoginist or anti-gay teachings? Shouldn't Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa be asked why he does not repudiate Cardinal Roger Mahoney for his enabling attitude toward pedophile priests? For that matter, shouldn't all Catholic politicians be asked how they can remain members of a church that tolerated and covered up generations of sexual abuse of minors?

If you are not going to demand that all Catholic politicians denounce and leave the church, I can't see how you expect Obama to do anything more than he has.

Why SHOULD anything be enough? There are certain thresholds beyond which, if you've fucked up enough, you're no longer good for a job. Should you be considered for a job at a day care center if you're a registered pedo just because you've said you're sorry?

I'm not saying he's crossed that threshold for me necessarily, but I'm sure he has for a lot of Americans whose patriotism sometimes borders on flag worship, who have been Obama supporters until now. For them nothing he can say or do will undo the damage.

And anyway Hagee and Wright are not comparable. Did Hagee marry McCain and his wife? Did Hagee baptize McCain's children. As you can see their relationship is in a completely different league. You can't just brush off something like that.

The point here being that this will greatly hurt his chances no matter how you look at it.
 
What spin? Apparently, you really can't teach a dog new tricks---with lancelva on the road, all we have is the same show from NickCole and iman. As Kulindahr points out, they ignore truth so they can repeat their 'big lie' propaganda for their candidate. It doesn't matter what they post, since it's all 'deja vu', same nonsense, same pathetic pap they've used to try and destroy Obama, but never, ever, attempting to explain why Rodham is the better choice. And when not that, they are mocking supporters of Obama, either through a disgusting use of "kool-aid", referencing a sad event that occured years before my birth, or from stealing my comment against lancelva's 'goddess cult worship' when he was lying about her support of the Iraq invasion. Then there is the absurd notion that Obama supporters aren't true Democrats (obviously, I'm not and Midnight isn't), as if that says anything from a party with too long of a history of losing, of sacrificing its ideals in its own Brezhnev-esque era of stagnation, or worse regression, while they combat anyone attempting to reform not only the broken party, but unify the "Two Americas". While doing this, they claim the contradiction that "we" have no idea who Obama is, but they sure know every aspect of his life decisions, what occured to him, what he's done, what he's thinking now---that he's defined by assocations they don't even understand, but are quick to define those associations for their own shill purposes. They claimed at one time that Obama supporters were only attacking her, but not discussing the issues, and since has trolled and regurgitated non-issues best left at Free Republic here, with all the seriousness of someone in denial that this country has issues regarding race. From those who would proudly proclaim the South's undying racism, they've betrayed their own Shangri-La by revealing not only their ignorance, but complacency, even commission, of the very acts upon which they hastily generalized on an entire demographic they, again, pretend they know so intimiately. Let's not forget their "BushRoveRepublican" criticisms that they have, when they are guilty of the same Rovian tactics, of partisan tricks and schemes that offer nothing positive, just division---just not "real" Democrats like themselves. Apparently, the only ones they don't intimately know are themselves.

So with this, you expect me to delve into vast detail against every wingnut vomit they spew on here? I'll stick with matching simple snipings that I learned from iman until they post something substantial, something worthwhile, and new, and necessary---something remotely important to us as Americans, and not just to aged elitists with a chip on their shoulder against progress.

Now here's a side of you that I don't get to see very often. :D

A long winded rant, and a righteous one too! ..|

I'm sorry to admit that I'm part of the guilty and the condemned in those comments, but I'll take me lumps too, even though I wasn't directly called out.

Centex I completely agree with IC's post above and would add that they so hate Mr. Obama for challenging their Queen that they unnecessarily attacked the man for his pastor's words when all they needed to do to help their Queen was to point out how difficult his association with the Rev. Wright will make it for him to be elected.

Nothing more needed to be said but that while white america might be ready to vote for a black man for president they are not ready to vote for one with a pastor like that.

Their desire to attack him for what his pastor said says more about them, and their dedication to the democratic party, than it says about Obama
.

Short of the "Queen" comment, you make an interesting and valid observation there.

However, in their defense, you seem to be going on the "presumptive nominee" approach in regard to Senator Obama.

I like to think that Senator Obama put the fire out on Rev. Wright's comments, and focussed on the bigger, broader picture here.

He discussed things that I've never heard a politician address, AND from the perspective of both a Black and a White American. No attempt to divide for political gain, but to share a perspective that is the American Fabric.

He spoke about my parents, and my generation in this speech as well.

It's Senator Obama's counter to his critics regarding Rev. Wright that should matter, and this speech should have diffused all of that.

My Parents are coming down to my farm this weekend, and I especially want my Mom to hear it.

She's also a Clinton supporter, and she told me last weekend after Reverend Wright's comments were being played in a constant loop, that if Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for POTUS that she wouldn't vote for him.

When I asked her why, she replied, because how do I know he doesn't really, deep down inside feel the same way as his paster?

I'll be curious to know my Parents response after they hear this speech, if they haven't already. (Sorry we have more important issues to discuss than politics when we talk a few times during the week.)

Nice to hear from you and IC07. We should do this more often. :D
 
So what is enough for you gaybot?


What is enough?

Indication that his actions and accomplishments run contrary to what Wright preaches.

Barack Obama is a smart man and he's been a man in power. He heard what Wright preached and he's heard a lot of other stuff as all informed people in America do. If he disapproves of what Wright preaches and his philosophy is as he stated in his speech, then what actions as US Senator and State Senator has he taken, what accomplishments can he point to, that show it.

We are not what we say we are when we're cornered. We are defined by the truth of our behavior and our actions and the results of our efforts along the way.
 
^^^ That's an exceptionally good point and utterly fair.


It's only good as distraction from the point.

The point is Barack Obama, what he truly stands for, has fought for and will fight for.

All those other people should be judged by what they've done and not done, not by Obama. And Obama should be judged by what's he's done and not done, not by the choices of others.

Obama chose Wright as his mentor, chose to return for 20 years, his entire adult life, to hear him preach, chose to be married by him, have his daughters baptized by him and influenced by Wright's preaching, to title a book after his words. Obama could have chosen another church, another pastor, another message to be influenced by -- but Wright is the one he chose. That's what this is about, not McCain's choices, not Romney's, not anybody else's.
 
He discussed things that I've never heard a politician address, AND from the perspective of both a Black and a White American. No attempt to divide for political gain, but to share a perspective that is the American Fabric.


Did you miss President Clinton's speech the day of the Million Man March? If so, you ought to read it. Obama's speech echoes it.
 
Obama's speech only shows how deceitful he is if his own behavior doesn't match what he preaches.


Here's a piece of his speech, emphasis added, followed by remarks he made just 8 days earlier, on March 10 in Mississippi when he was using race in a way that suited him then and there:


For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.​
+++++​
[OBAMA] When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re behind,” he said, “and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid…​
Not only did Obama "pounce" on a "gaffe" by the Hillary campaign, the "gaffe" was instigated by Drudge to smear Hillary as racist.
 
Back
Top