Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes, but the only "mind" you have access to is your own

What, nobody else out there can talk? That's news to me.

Keep trying to miss the point...

Why not start off by labeling Obama accurately

I have done so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...Obama is black and [the fear is]...he may support his own kind over the rest of the people.

His "own kind" is his white mother that birthed him and the white grandparents that loved and nurtured him. You need to learn to think before you speak.

EDIT: From your edit...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...and you should know that most people in this country think of him as black....

Again, Brian, "everyone else" isn't you. Keep hiding behind "everyone else"...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Keep trying to miss the point...

What point? You made none. Your entire purpose was to be insulting. You had no other agenda, and were making no point at all. You still aren't.

We are a social species. We communicate. Access to each other's minds is not only easy but universal. Mistakes can be made, but we are not closed black boxes.

Again, Brian, "everyone else" isn't you. Keep hiding behind "everyone else"...

My own view of whether Obama is black or not isn't under discussion. I haven't expressed any, and any attempt, using partial quotes, to make it look as if I have is a lie -- so we can add "dishonest" to your list of sins.

I was talking about "everyone else," not me. I'm not hiding behind everyone else -- you're hiding everyone else (the subject of the discussion) behind me. In an attempt to make it all about me, to make it all personal, and to provide yourself a vehicle to be rude, obnoxious, and offensive.

As usual.

The truth is, I would rather share my flesh with a shark, than my personal thoughts with the likes of you.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What point? You made none. Your entire purpose was to be insulting. You had no other agenda, and were making no point at all. You still aren't.

We are a social species. We communicate. Access to each other's minds is not only easy but universal. Mistakes can be made, but we are not closed black boxes.



My own view of whether Obama is black or not isn't under discussion. I haven't expressed any, and any attempt, using partial quotes, to make it look as if I have is a lie -- so we can add "dishonest" to your list of sins.

I was talking about "everyone else," not me. I'm not hiding behind everyone else -- you're hiding everyone else (the subject of the discussion) behind me. In an attempt to make it all about me, to make it all personal, and to provide yourself a vehicle to be rude, obnoxious, and offensive.

As usual.

The truth is, I would rather share my flesh with a shark, than my personal thoughts with the likes of you.

You might want to reread my last post above with the additional edit. Here is your full quote so that others may see that I was not taking away the essence of what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There's more than one kind of racism. Classically, racism is a belief that one race is superior to another or that members of one race have certain disagreeable qualities (low intelligence, propensity for crime, laziness, etc.) The attitude Odin described doesn't fit that mold. It's not a belief that black people are inferior, but merely a recognition that Obama is black and a fear that he may support his own kind over the rest of the people.

Best...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I think so. When religious leaders in a very conservative place start using the phrase "social justice" in his sermons -- as I've heard a few times -- attitudes are starting to change. The stereotype is that most folks down on their luck were probably either just lazy or were impoverished and/or homeless and.or unemployed because of self-inflicted behavior (i.e. criminal past, drug/alcohol abuse). I think we're seeing more and more examples of people who did all the "right" things (even as these conservative small-town Texans would see it) and are still losing ground to unemployment, falling wages and loss of health insurance. So this message of "social justice" and of preaching the social gospel is a lot more accepted, and even embraced, than I think it would have been here a few years ago.. People are seeing it's a LOT more than just the lazy and the reckless who are being taken down by the Social Darwinist policies of a corporate-state today.

This is where maybe the Awakening-type Boomers/Prophets can step in and maybe be of service. Maybe. During this last Awakening was the rise of both the Evangelical movement and the New Age movement which has become Right vs. Left/Left vs. Right and the various permutations thereof. IIRC, the High had little or to nothing to do with a spiritual/religious/consciousness movement. The Silent started the shift in their quiet Artist way. But it seems Boomers made it huge and communal and social. And then we got insular and divisive and scared and selfish. Perhaps in elderhood we can remember that both sides of the Awakening movements were about community and social justice. We were for the most part raised by GIs who'd been through the last 4T and imparted certain ideas of social responsibility to us.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I think so. When religious leaders in a very conservative place start using the phrase "social justice" in his sermons -- as I've heard a few times -- attitudes are starting to change. The stereotype is that most folks down on their luck were probably either just lazy or were impoverished and/or homeless and.or unemployed because of self-inflicted behavior (i.e. criminal past, drug/alcohol abuse). I think we're seeing more and more examples of people who did all the "right" things (even as these conservative small-town Texans would see it) and are still losing ground to unemployment, falling wages and loss of health insurance. So this message of "social justice" and of preaching the social gospel is a lot more accepted, and even embraced, than I think it would have been here a few years ago.. People are seeing it's a LOT more than just the lazy and the reckless who are being taken down by the Social Darwinist policies of a corporate-state today.

I can vouch for that with the conservatives christians in my area. I produce at Halogen TV, a network that broadcast docs and shows related to social justice and I come across folks from that circle daily.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I can vouch for that with the conservatives christians in my area. I produce at Halogen TV, a network that broadcast docs and shows related to social justice and I come across folks from that circle daily.

Conservatives have always been more generous with their own money than liberals.

James50

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...or-2144460.php

Asked by a woman in the crowd about Social Security being viewed as an entitlement program, Perry reiterated the suggestion in his anti-Washington book, Fed Up!, that the program amounts to a Ponzi scheme.

"It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie," Perry said. "It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."

Perry's taking the GOP disaster in NY26 and going national with it.

Perry's going to pay off for the Dems more than Paul Ryan's budget.

Shh, but don't tell anyone; let them focus on their Obamascare dance until its too late and they got Perry as their man.

Originally Posted by Weave

In matchups with all the GOP candidates he is essentially tied with most of them, even Ron Paul. That would be like GWB in 2004 being tied with Kucinich or Al Sharpton. http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Ob...mann-Paul.aspx

More of a commentary, and a sad one, on the USA and its voters, not on Obama.

Originally Posted by Odin

Bill Moyers: The great divide today is a radical lack of empathy

a great interview of Moyers by Garrison Keillor....

This echoes my recent post about my college campus perfectly (in the thread about what must happen in the 4T). But the society Bill Moyers warns us about is certainly the kind of society that people such as Weave want with all their heart. And we are certainly on the way there, and have been for 30 years. It's what you vote for, if you vote Republican today.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Some here will be astonished how it could possibly be, but Reagan -- this board's favorite whipping boy -- is still pretty popular even among "Middle Americans" today who think today's increased income inequality and the Tea Party pretty much suck. I don't think I'd try to rally them with the constant reminder that everything magically, suddenly started going to Hell on January 20, 1981.

Telling the truth can sometimes be good strategy too. What about the fact that we've had 30 years of this regression, and it's time to resume progress toward a more fair and equal society? Long past time in fact? And what about the fact that there are many Americans who need to have this charmer that has deceived them for so long debunked?

But it's true, Bush is a better whipping boy. But they can't let people forget who has created the mess. Republicans that is.

There are stats that show that more people are better off under Democrats than Republicans. It would be good strategy to cite them. That includes going back decades of course.

Originally Posted by James50

Conservatives have always been more generous with their own money than liberals.

James50

Except rich conservatives, maybe (since poor people give more than rich people). And of course they now have this idea that paying taxes is not being generous, but merely being forced to pay against your will. But in fact, it IS being generous to pay your taxes.

Conservative Christians interested in social justice? Some of them maybe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More of a commentary, and a sad one, on the USA and its voters, not on Obama.

Here we go again. Not just a few days ago, you were agreeing with me that Democrats needed to market their message better. Now here you are, back to adopting the same leftist mindset that somehow the voters should just 'know' Obama is far preferable than any other GOP candidates. Basically intellectual arrogance that causes the left to lose more elections than they win.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Keep trying to miss the point...






His "own kind" is his white mother that birthed him and the white grandparents that loved and nurtured him. You need to learn to think before you speak.

EDIT: From your edit...



Again, Brian, "everyone else" isn't you. Keep hiding behind "everyone else"...

In my opinion, Obama is culturally a white Midwestern Xer, who in young adulthood started getting into the more usual African-American culture because that was, after all, how he was defined in this country; and is making a serious INTJ* type effort to turn the combination into a coherent whole.

* Which if he isn't, he's something very close to that, possibly INTP, but certainly NT of some sort, or I'll eat my Type & Temperament books.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

In my opinion, Obama is culturally a white Midwestern Xer, who in young adulthood started getting into the more usual African-American culture because that was, after all, how he was defined in this country; and is making a serious INTJ* type effort to turn the combination into a coherent whole.

* Which if he isn't, he's something very close to that, possibly INTP, but certainly NT of some sort, or I'll eat my Type & Temperament books.

Very good take on Obama and I believe the same thing.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Very good take on Obama and I believe the same thing.

For those familiar with the Enneagram typology, I think most of Obama's problems stem from that he campaigned as a challenger/confronter leader (enneagram 8) but has governed as a peacemaker (enneagram 9). 8s can have a 9 "wing" and vice versa.

The part of Obama's personal history that threw me and perhaps many others was his devotion to Jeremiah Wright. This church experience added to the impression he was an 8. I am still somewhat confused by it.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

For those familiar with the Enneagram typology, I think most of Obama's problems stem from that he campaigned as a challenger/confronter leader (enneagram 8) but has governed as a peacemaker (enneagram 9). 8s can have a 9 "wing" and vice versa.

The part of Obama's personal history that threw me and perhaps many others was his devotion to Jeremiah Wright. This church experience added to the impression he was an 8. I am still somewhat confused by it.

James50

My take is that he got involved to get "street cred" and then made friends among the congregation and possibly among Wright, himself.

Another possibility is that Wright served as kind of a father-figure to Obama, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Originally Posted by James50

Conservatives have always been more generous with their own money than liberals.

James50

Oh? Remember, the movement to give away half (or more) of the huge personal fortunes created predominantly in the recent past are Warren Bugffett and Bill Gates. I wouldn't qualify them as conseervatives. There is also a difference in giving. Conservatives tend to give to the like-minded needy, hence a Christian foundaton that helps unwed mothers find adoptive parents has no trouble getting conservative donations. The same can't be said for organizatins that help, but lack a social aganda. Of course, neither group gives to social or political organizations with agendas they oppose, and many give generously to ones they favor. Both groups give to the arts, so there the lines are blurred.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...or-2144460.php

Perry's taking the GOP disaster in NY26 and going national with it.

Perry's going to pay off for the Dems more than Paul Ryan's budget.

Shh, but don't tell anyone; let them focus on their Obamascare dance until its too late and they got Perry as their man.

Be careful what you wish for. Perry can get elected in a year of high-disgust with the Dems.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh? Remember, the movement to give away half (or more) of the huge personal fortunes created predominantly in the recent past are Warren Bugffett and Bill Gates. I wouldn't qualify them as conseervatives. There is also a difference in giving. Conservatives tend to give to the like-minded needy, hence a Christian foundaton that helps unwed mothers find adoptive parents has no trouble getting conservative donations. The same can't be said for organizatins that help, but lack a social aganda. Of course, neither group gives to social or political organizations with agendas they oppose, and many give generously to ones they favor. Both groups give to the arts, so there the lines are blurred.

What you should think about is giving by the conservative making $50K/year vs the liberal making $50K/yr. Gates, Buffett, Kochs are all outliers that have nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. Consider this article by George Will from 2008:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

And before Rush or someone else asks, no, I do not know how they define conservative and liberal. It appears a main marker in this guy's thinking is whether they voted for GWB.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

... The part of Obama's personal history that threw me and perhaps many others was his devotion to Jeremiah Wright. This church experience added to the impression he was an 8. I am still somewhat confused by it.

James50

Was the real flesh-and-blood Jeremiah Wright more similar to the cardboard cutout we heard-about in the press, or was he more complex and nuanced? I honestly don't know, since I never spent the time to make that determination. I tend to doubt that he was that outrageous. He held a high profile position in his church and held it for a long time.

It's easy to pick five or six instances of over-the-top behavior out of a 30 year career.

Originally Posted by James50

What you should think about is giving by the conservative making $50K/year vs the liberal making $50K/yr. Gates, Buffett, Kochs are all outliers that have nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. Consider this article by George Will from 2008:


And before Rush or someone else asks, no, I do not know how they define conservative and liberal. It appears a main marker in this guy's thinking is whether they voted for GWB.

James50

Thanks for the qualifier. I suspect that the proportion of faith-based to the more secular side of giving may be tilted as well. FWIW, I'll wager that just about any point can be made if you look at the data from the right angle.

The headline says it all: "Only 17 percent view federal government favorably".

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh? Remember, the movement to give away half (or more) of the huge personal fortunes created predominantly in the recent past are Warren Bugffett and Bill Gates. I wouldn't qualify them as conseervatives. There is also a difference in giving. Conservatives tend to give to the like-minded needy, hence a Christian foundaton that helps unwed mothers find adoptive parents has no trouble getting conservative donations. The same can't be said for organizatins that help, but lack a social aganda. Of course, neither group gives to social or political organizations with agendas they oppose, and many give generously to ones they favor. Both groups give to the arts, so there the lines are blurred.

I realize this will be a bit of an overgeneralization, but I don't think the difference between conservatives and liberals is that one group is a lot more "generous" than the other, but rather in *how* and *where* they think aid to the less fortunate should be delivered. I think conservatives tend to prefer giving through private charities as the first "line of defense" against poverty, hunger and homelessness -- and liberals are more likely to believe that government, through taxes, should be the most prominent source of aid to the poor. Could be way off base, and there are certainly plenty of exceptions, but from 30,000 feet this is how I see it.

Originally Posted by James50

For those familiar with the Enneagram typology, I think most of Obama's problems stem from that he campaigned as a challenger/confronter leader (enneagram 8) but has governed as a peacemaker (enneagram 9). 8s can have a 9 "wing" and vice versa.

The part of Obama's personal history that threw me and perhaps many others was his devotion to Jeremiah Wright. This church experience added to the impression he was an 8. I am still somewhat confused by it.

James50

I remember reading that Obama was typed as 3w4 by the folks that publish a lot of the popular books on the Eneagram (Riso and Hudson, IIRC).

Originally Posted by Odin

I remember reading that Obama was typed as 3w4 by the folks that publish a lot of the popular books on the Eneagram (Riso and Hudson, IIRC).

Which is? I've forgotten most of what I knew about that.

Pat, 5W4