Obama's Speech on Race & America

[jwalton]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

O'Reilly made Olbermann's worst person in the world for the millionth time. I really want to see those two debate someday.

msnbc.com Video Player

[Murphie]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

How would we have learned that from Reagan, exactly?

[Malacite]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

And they want to build a fucking wall with Mexico now (Israel is building one too)


Have we learned nothing from Regan? WALLS DO NOT WORK!!! To quote Lee Ioccoca "America doesn't build walls, it tears them down."

[jwalton]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

Watch all three parts of this documentary. It's from the perspective of an Iraqi citizen, unfiltered and untouched by mainstream media censorship. Reading and hearing about the wall that divides Baghdad is one thing, but seeing it is another.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvcYr72DFps]YouTube - Five Years In Iraq - Baghdad: City Of Walls 1 of 3[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A7cB2MQjXU]YouTube - Five Years In Iraq - Baghdad's Killing Fields 2 of 3[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PH_vPneJ6I]YouTube - Five Years In Iraq - Iraq's Lost Generation 3 of 3[/ame]

[MrMageo]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

Ya they were never able to recover because of eurpean nation organizing mass assaults (called crusades) to rape and pillage them more. Followed by the conquest of the Ottoman's, and then of course ww2, and we come to the cold war, which brings us to today.

[jwalton]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

Yeah, the Middle East was quite the place before the Mongols dropped on by and pillaged the shit out of it. Sadly, they've never been able to fully recover since.

[Malacite]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race & America

Before she died, Benazir Bhuto (sp???) said herself that she feels what the terrorists and extremists believe of the Qur'an is a perversion of the true Islam. Furthermore, way back (hundreds of years ago) wasn't it the arab world that was the cultural center of the world? I'm fairly sure it was at one point, with a surprisingly big focus on math and science. It's a such a shame that we live in such a screwed up world ><;


And yeah, you are right in that Israel has done some (surprisingly) iffy things, but to suggest that they openly welcome war and violence and started this whole shit is ludicrous. Try reading the Torah some time and actually getting to know the Jewish community. There's a reason that they prefer to just keep to themselves. (Hint: It works. And no I'm not talking about international isolationism)

[WishMaster3K]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

DieselBoy, that last paragraph reminds me of what it seems like the Catholic Church has done, but that's totally a new thread that I don't feel like starting, nor being a part of.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

Assallamu aleykum! Thank you for your insightful thoughts DieselBoy.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

I dont know if you have had the chance to read the bible, or the kharan. I have read both.

Muslim nations are the exact same, thier Kahran states that women have no power so that is one of their fundamental laws.

MrMageo, I have been following you through this topic and find your comments interesting to read, another viewpoint to look at certain topics and events throughout history, and I personally will say that you are knowledgeable about the things you discuss a fair portion of the time. However the information you continue to recite seems to be tainted, distorted into an incredibly biased view. While I understand that conventional media and information is tainted as well, you seem to completely reject the mainstream notion of things rather than look at it through a filter. I will even agree with you that the U.S. and even Israel have committed terrorist acts, and that such is even in practice today. However, I feel that your understanding of events in World War 2 is flawed with regard to the involvement of the Japanese. You claim they never targeted civilians, specifically in the U.S. Which is in a complete entirety incorrect, they had many weapons and plans specifically designed to attack the civilian population, much in the same way we did. War makes beasts of us all. No group remains free from this effect. Some few however, get a little carried away with it. Rape, murder, genocide, concentration camps, incendiary bombs, IED's, biological weapons, etc... lend themselves to the devils that emerges from every country that enters a war. The United States in world war 2, did there fair share of injustice, their fair share of evil, however, it is very hard to argue that the other nations came close to the atrocities committed by Germany, Russia, and Japan.

As for Palestine, since the 1900's it was never really a nation, it was a region possessed by the Ottoman empire with no distinct boundaries, it was an abstract region. Following World War 1, the United Kingdom dissolved the Ottoman control over the region and took control, eventually naming "Palestine" and letting it retain its abstract boundaries. 1916, controlled by the British and French and then in 1917 plans were established by the respective nations to establish a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine. Things remained in a similar state until 1947 when Palestine was turned over from British control to the UN. In 1947 the UN decided to resolve the disputes between factions within Palestine (mainly the Arab and Jewish populations which was a result of the migration of Jews to the region, making the Arab population uneasy, resulting in sporadic violence and riots. (I feel that I should be saying the "Muslim population", I don't technically think its correct to refer to them as Arab). Another reason for the tension was the apparent favor the British gave the Jews, despite that both populations supported the Allied forced against the oppressive Ottoman Empire, making the Arabs feel a sense of betrayal), by dissolving the region into two separate states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The Jews approved, the Arab populous and Arab surrounding nations did not. In 1948, the day before the end of the British mandate over the region, Israel declared its independence. With increasing divisions between the residing population and the surrounding region, tension gave way as both sides decided upon violent and atrocious actions. The surrounding Arab nations quickly organized and moved into the Arab designated portion of Palestine to not only support the Arabs, attempt to end Palestinian immigration to their respective countries, but also to show support for a united, democratic state assuring equality of all the inhabitants. However, when Israel declared its independence, the forces invaded igniting the 1948 Arab- Israeli War, which to the Israelites would be known as the War of Independence and to the Palestinians as The Catastrophe. Both sides however committed horrific acts, and fought a war that really should have been delegated further. The tension in the area today results from that original divide of the region and the following conflicts. A war is a war, and this war and its aftermath follows that same pattern, just this time, the populous refuses to really give up or acknowledge defeat. As for Israel's involvement with other regions such as Lebanon and even within Palestine itself, it has been exerting a heavy hand, which I incredibly disapprove of, however, it is truly hard to blame them considering the constant influence of the region and the continuation of conflict. I personally, and this is my own personal opinion, lean more towards supporting Israel, rather than the Palestinians. I disagree with the opinions and policies of both extensively, and regard both of the systems in power as being ran by heavy handed extremists, however, it is hard to claim that Israel targets the civilian population as extensively as the Palestinians love to do. *deep sigh* both sides really need to get their acts together.

I was going to continue, but honestly I'm tired and understand that this is meaningless, to attempt to shed light on instances that from my vantage points are mistakes. However, the last thing I would like to correct is the above quoted instance. Apparently just because you have read both books does not mean you understand much of the texts. I will not say you do not understand Christianity, but I will say firmly that your understanding of the Qur'an is mistaken. The Qur'an never once states that women do not have power. Women in Islam are to be regarded as coexisting with their husbands, not subservient or lower, but rather as an important, equal part of society. Men are titled with the responsibility of providing for the wife and children while the woman is charged with being a faithful companion. Women receive a dowry from their husbands to be married, they control whether or not their husbands can be married more than once, are free from the financial responsibilities of the household and can operate business and retain the full profit of such ventures. While the current distorted Islamic nations refuse to acknowledge such provisions, it does not mean that it is certainly the way it is. With all things it is distorted by those in power and those seeking power. To look at how powerful women in Islam are able to become and how strongly they are to be regarded can be provided by simply looking at Muhammad's wives. One of which was a extremely successful and powerful businesswoman in the region before and after marrying Muhammad, the next being his youngest wife, Aisha, which following his death raised armies and lead many into battle. As for the notions of say for example "modest attire", aka hijabs and burqas, both men and women are explicitly asked to "lower their gaze" (Don't check out the opposite sex, or view each other sexually) and to cover their privates, which for men is regarded as everything from the naval to the knee and for women, everything from the neck to the hands and feet (with understandable exception, essentially the interpretations differ from place to place with the original phrase only explicitly saying to cover the privates and to be modest and to not be provocative or sexual). blah blah blah, women not being allowed outside is a distortion of hadith and Islam's concern for women's safety and vulnerability, honor killings are not allowed period and is a cultural thing, rape is SUPPOSED to be regarded as a crime by the one who committed the act not a sin or crime by the one raped which is distorted by the regions, they can also divorce just as easily as men however keep in mind that divorce is supposed to be a last resort and the difficulty women receive from various regions with such things are stipulations by those that make the laws. Essentially women are to be regarded highly, equally, and protected and cared for. The apparent discrimination that exists in the Islamic countries of the world are typically extensions of culture and distortions by those that are making the laws and the various hadith's people follow. The only thing out of the Qur'an what so ever that gives any indication of your argued case is a passage discussing marital conflict with a wife, who after repeated problems it says to "lightly beat", which in all honesty can be a distortion of the base Arabic word which means a plethora of things and in ALL other cases of the Qur'an is used as "to separate", lol, in fact the word is so extensive it can mean anything from beat, to separate and even to have sex with, so in a very male dominated culture it is very possible that somewhere down the line it was changed to fit the "male power" mold. However, I suggest you reread that Qur'an of yours, maybe look into WHO translated it, ignore hadith (VERY culturally biased and assembled very late after Muhhamad's death)(Don't forget! The emphasis is to be on the message not the prophet! Which hadith and people LOVE to ignore), and understand that what exists in the world is a distorted, culturally influenced, power manipulated, male dominated version perpetuated by the under education of individuals and the lack of literacy.
______________________________
As for Obama's speech on Race and America, I thought he presented his points very well and his message carried strongly, however I felt it lacked the pizazz his other speeches have. He does do a wonderful damage control though.

[Malacite]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

I find Meet the Press with Tim Russet to be very good actually. Not like the blatant lies Fox Spouts or the Arrogant, Self-righteous bull shit of Lou Dobbs and the rest of CNN's crew (a network notorious for distorting the truth by leaving out key facts. SHAME ON YOU WOLF BLITZER! You used to be a very well respected journalist. Should'a stayed in Israel man.)


Regardless of what network you watch, you gotta take a lot of it with a grain of salt unless it's one of the good people on there (like my man Cafferty ^^). Shit, John Stewart is more credible than most of these people! (For the record that's not a rip on John, I him. I just find it funny that a political satire is often more informative than the actual news programs @.@)



Here's some goodies from Obama's website:

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In |

Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Hungry for Change?

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dinner1?source=invite_DWB2

I really, really hate being a resident of Canada right now. Man I would absolutely love to win that little contest and have a chance to eat dinner with Barack and discuss the issues. This guy is my hero for so many reasons.

[Caspian]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

strated new thread here for discussions on fox news etc.

[MrMageo]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

keep posting fox stuff its awesome

[Murphie]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

It's easier to just say that they are just as bad. That way you don't have to back it up with facts.

[jwalton]

Re: Obama's Speech on Race &amp; America

Since you have a bone to pick with MSNBC, I'd like you to cite examples of why they're awful if you feel up to it. Also wouldn't mind some examples of what makes Olbermann awful at what he does. I would agree that Olbermann tends to be a little too dramatic when he goes into his special comment segments, but his information is based around facts. Hell, just a few days ago, he made a mistake listing an individual on his "Worst Person in the World" segment based on incorrect information, and instead of trying to scoop it under the rug or denying the mistake, he apologized on the air the very next day and put himself on that list of that day's "Worst Person in the World". That's called journalistic integrity.

My beef with O'Reilly is that he's been proven to be a hypocrite, not to mention a liar on numerous occasions. It's one thing to be biased, it's another to be blatantly manipulative. Fox News has posted false information on numerous occasions and has made no effort to retract it that I know of.

Again, I'm very interested and would like to see video proof and/or links. I've linked plenty of examples in this thread so far, and I'd be more than willing to post more to support my stance that Fox News is a farce of a news organization if you're interested.