Obama Speaks Truth to Race

Honestly I wasn’t expecting much from Obama’s speech today on race, assuming that he would attempt to distance himself and Clinton from their respective supporters that have been trying to turn this into a racial election, in one direction or another.

As it turns out, Obama takes this moment — at the height and final stretch of an incredibly unpredictable nomination race — to speak substantively, expansively, and somewhat confrontationally on race and how it influences the opinions and opportunities of a broad swath of Americans today. Here’s the transcript.

Some continue to insist that Obama is all talk. Looking at what he has accomplished, they couldn’t be more wrong. But even if it were true, I think a President who is able and willing to speak words like these at politically inopportune times may do more to change the way business is done than any amount of political triangulation.

99 Responses to “Obama Speaks Truth to Race”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    Another great speech by the big B.O.

    Obama seems more trustworthy than Hillary, certainly more than McCain; but slightly less so than Ron Paul.

    If Obama is true to his words he will make a fantastic president for America.

  2. Steve Says:

    This speech went way beyond what I was expecting. To me, the most impressive part was the amount of Grace that filled the speech.

    Grace is a concept that can condemn the sinful things that people do while embracing their essential humanity. It both opens our eyes to injustice and sets us free from jealousy, anger, sadness, and guilt.

    It opens up the door to a unity of purpose even when we have legitimate disagreements with each other.

    Truly excellent.

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    An American President embodying Grace – seems too much to hope for after 8 long years.

  4. shcb Says:

    I guess I must have been watching a different speech, I thought Frank Luntz put it best. He said that this was the first speech Obama has given as a politician. It was carefully crafted by he and his advisors, with every tee crossed and I dotted. It was delivered word for word from a teleprompter and it showed. There were places that are disjointed and just not very well delivered. Frank said this is one speech that he should have looked at the camera, and the American people right in the eye and leveled with them. Instead it was just another politician fighting for his political life. The American people will be the ones that make the ultimate decision of course, but between this and his wife’s statements there is a clear line that these two people care more for Africa than America, their right of course, but do we want that as a president?

    On a practical point, he won’t gain any black vote over this he already has 90% or so for just being a Democrat. Where he may lose is the Jewish vote. They tend to vote about 75% for Democrats but as anti-Semitic as White is and as tepid as Obama’s response was, he may lose a significant portion of that vote.

  5. ymatt Says:

    Pahaha, and it begins. You literally got that teleprompter comment from the Fox News talking head directly after the speech. Give me a break, man. Your first paragraph asserts that you didn’t get the point of his speech, and your second paragraph proves it. Glad you could find a toehold for the eventual hatred you’ll have to level at Obama once he’s our President.

    Seriously, I cannot believe that your second paragraph there was not specifically crafted to be the kind of pointlessly racial campaign argument that the speech specifically and eloquently lambasted. You’re right that it was a politically “tepid” response, in that it did not optimize the effect it would have on his short-term political goals. Good, substantial speeches are like that, but you seem determined to subscribe to the media notion that all speeches have no value beyond their effect on the next opinion poll.

  6. shcb Says:

    Well, I agree with Fox, what can I say. You agree with Greenwald and I don’t, doesn’t mean we can’t use their material, it’s their job to think these things through and voice their opinions. Our job is to design things and build things, we don’t have 10 hours a day to parse every word politicians speak and they don’t have 10 hours a day to design the next widget, they use our widgets and we use their words.

    What is racial about my second paragraph, race and ethnicity are facts of life, we keep track of these things and I am just pointing out facts. I don’t harbor any animosity for Negros or Jews, they all vote for who they vote for their own reasons, more power to them. I didn’t use Whites, Asians, or Hispanics because for whatever reason they don’t vote in as monolithic a manner as Negros or Jews. Both those groups have been persecuted in the past and are more sensitive to hatred like the Rev. White spews in his sermons so it is conceivable the Jewish population will more likely take this personally than say the Caucasian population even though he has made equally belligerent comments about them. A much smaller percentage of non-Jewish Caucasian, Democrat voters will not vote or vote for McCain than Jewish, Democrat voters because of White’s remarks and Obama’s twenty year odyssey with the man.

    This speech was essentially an “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” speech but Obama turned it into a wonderful speech on race and the imperfections of man. Brilliant tactic. It didn’t address the issue at hand except in a peripheral manner, but it was brilliant. When MLK gave his “I have a dream speech” it was about race relations, this speech was about his relationship with his minister who has become a liability to his political ambitions that was very artfully manipulated into speech on race relations . Under different circumstances it would have been historic, here it is just a cop out.

  7. shcb Says:

    By the way, I purposely let this sit for a few days so you guys could have your moment in the sun before I spoiled it for you. Just my little gift of good manners. Happy Easter to all.

  8. enkidu Says:

    I haven’t commented on his speech simply because I haven’t had time to listen to it all of it. Not his typical stellar delivery so far, but I hear it picks up in the last third.


    scroll down to the cartoon

  9. ymatt Says:

    Pahah, I keep forgetting there’s no reason to take you seriously, shcb. I have this gullible streak, and keep forgetting that you’re just arguing for the sake of tweaking people’s ears. Negros and jews — hilarious.

  10. shcb Says:

    at least I had the decency to capitalize the “J” in “Jews” :)

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    I didn’t watch the speech, I read it, it was brilliant on a very superficial level just as shcb says; and, it was even more brilliant on a deeper, personal and insightful level that shcb will never admit to seeing.

    ymatt, good on ya mate for noticing when you’re being tweaked, take that for whatever it’s worth considering it’s from one far more gullible than thee.

    shcb, nearly tore a strip off ya for getting so petty about a capitalization, then noticed the smiley… in any event you’d do well to take a good hard look at the cartoon Enkidu linked up with, I think the illustrator had you in mind when he drew it.

  12. shcb Says:

    Well, I figure if you’re going to insult an entire race of people you should have the grace to capitalize your insult. You all know I haven’t a racist bone in my body, my comments were from the heart but my respectful use of the word Negro was meant to incite a riot, drat, foiled again. The meaning of that paragraph would have been the same from had I used the word “Black” which kind of makes a point that we are so caught up in symbolism we miss the message sometimes. I think that may have been part of Obama’s message. Kind of deep for an ole farm boy.

    The speech reads better than it was delivered which is odd for Obama. I think he and his handlers realized how important this speech was and he either over prepared or more likely he read it word for word not wanting to take the chance of making a minor error that would come back to haunt him, which was probably a wise move. It took him off his game a bit, but his words will live in history not his delivery, at least in regards to this speech.

    I looked at the cartoon, and I just don’t get how Fox news is racist, I’ve watched it for years and I don’t ever remember any of the anchors say anything racist, maybe the guests, but that is hardly the network’s responsibility, and quite frankly more Black and Hispanic guests have uttered racist words than white guests. Al Sharpton is a regular for Christ sake, who is more racist than Al. I kind of like him, you certainly know what he thinks, but he is a racist.

  13. knarlyknight Says:


    You don’t get how Fox and your comments are racist? Let me ask you a few questions then.

    How much coverage did Fox give the Obama preacher “issue”?

    How much coverage did they give the white guy (e.g. McCain) preacher issues?

    How many more times have you been thinking about the Obama preacher issue compared to the white guy’s preacher issues?

    Now go away and connect the dots.


  14. shcb Says:


    The two events aren’t even close to being analogous. McCain is just getting an endorsement from a minister in the hope of getting some votes from a population he might not get so many from without it. He isn’t even of the same religion. Obama on the other hand chose this man not only as his minister but as his mentor, was married by, and had his children baptized by this man not only in this particular chuch, by this man. He named a book after him. This track record is over a twenty year period, McCain relationship is what, one day. So the far left wing
    Huffington Post is over blowing the McCain connection while down playing the Obama. This is a big deal, coupled with the remarks his wife has made they offer an important insight into their philosophies and vision of America. Since Obama has a short voting record (although it is almost totally liberal) this is an important piece of information for voters. So important in fact that he felt the need for this monumental speech. The slightly right of center Fox news gave wall to wall coverage that night, I haven’t watched since so I don’t know how much more coverage it got. Probably a bit of overkill, the slightly left of center Denver Post didn’t give it a single word of coverage the next day, definitely under kill. The slightly left of center AP put a left, pro Obama spin on it. The very right wing Jon Caldera filling in for the slightly less right wing Mike Rosen absolutely destroyed Obama. Bias plus bias equals balance. What is probably more pertinent is the coverage the mainstream media gave to Bush giving one, count ’em , one speech at Bob Jones University. Not a twenty year history of kneeling at the feet of a racist he considers a mentor. Now he’s done nothing wrong, you can let anyone you want influence you, it is the voters choice how to interpret this information, but it should be made available.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    okaaay. So bias plus bias equals balanced? Here, this should balance your comments about McCain:


  16. shcb Says:

    sorry, read a few paragraphs, not interested.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    ah shucks shcb, you missed all the good parts. I found this perspective interesting:

    McCain almost drowned in that lake. But a Vietnamese man, 50-year-old Mai Van On, ran out of his air raid shelter, took a bamboo pole, swam out to McCain, and pulled American “war hero” from the plane wreckage. Vietnamese people were pissed off, they gathered around McCain in a mob and tried to kill him, understandably. This is a guy who just tried to kill them! But Mai Van On saved John McCain from the mob too. This old Vietnamese guy is the real “war hero” because he took a real dangerous risk! McCain, “war loser,” was rescued by his enemy who he tried to kill! That is the most pathetic war story I, a Russian, ever heard in my life.

    After he was saved, Vietnamese guards took McCain to a prison for interrogation. There, McCain proved to be as soft as those pus-cheeks of his.

    Vietnamese naturally beat McCain up. That’s not nice, but it is normal, you see what Americans do in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay just because of 3,000 dead Americans, imagine how they behave if Arabs killed 3 millions like USA did to Vietnam. So, how does an American “war hero” behave when he is getting beaten up by his enemy captors for confessions? In every culture in history, a “hero” in this situation does one of two things: either suffers horribly and doesn’t break (like a Braveheart), or the hero kills himself first. That, to every culture, is what a “war hero” does.

    there are more good parts from the perspective of someone not trying to glorify a fellow Republican. But we’re off topic and anyone looking for “balance” as you say shcb can go look at that original article.

    You missed the whole point you know that shcb? The point is that “bias plus bias equals balanced” is as big as any bullshit you ever uttered. Just another mindless jingoism that passes as thought in your corner. Jesus Christ would have cried.

    Enough of that.

    Back to the topic.

    Anyone seen this yet?


    Does it fill in any of the blanks previously left out of the (apparently) previous shrill coverage by Fox?

  18. shcb Says:

    A couple good pieces from Krauthammer and Sowell.

    This contextual analysis of Wright’s venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It’s the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That’s why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.


    Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago.

    Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.


  19. enkidu Says:

    knarly, that russian extremist site you linked to is like looking at shcb thru a funhouse mirror: look, partisan righty is now partisan lefty! Fair n balanced indeed.

    I love that the media is only playing the “god damn America!” bite. Yeah I know there is the whole chickens home to roost thing too. If you actually read his entire sermon, it is just more oratorical excess. I’ve heard plenty of white evangelical rwnjs spout virtually the same thing or worse. And frankly America is blessed and damned. Damned for some citizens persistent racism, damned for our corporatism and greed, damned for our screwed up foreign policy. Blessed by so many great things, that I must repeat a phrase that has stuck with me over the years: there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

    I finally managed to finish Obama’s speech (not from lack of trying, so busy!) I bet none of the rwnjs bother to listen to it in its entirety. Obama gets it. He can bring us together more effectively than either Hillary or grampa McSame.

    If you only listen to half, listen to the last half.

  20. enkidu Says:

    ah yes, charles krauthammer… rwnj par excellence


    on Yom Kippur he shouted over the rabbi’s sermon, because he disagreed with the rabbi’s wish for peace between Israelis and Arabs. His neocon warmongering and Israel-first policy have certainly helped w ushering a wave of peace and democracy in the middle east (/snark)

    and Thomas Sowell? he is best buddies w Clarence Thomas… and blames anyone left of him for every bad thing, ever (of course).

  21. shcb Says:

    Friends with a Supreme Court Justice, my god is there no decency left in this world. Maybe Dr. Sowell is right to blame the left for everything wrong with this country.

  22. ymatt Says:

    shcb, assuming you’re not still just baiting (there I go again), I’m really amazed and fascinated by your and your preferred commentator’s dedication to twisting this speech around. I don’t mean this to be snarky but: go read the text of this speech again. The whole thing, it’s not long. Honestly, read it with intellectual engagement, trying to understand what he is saying.

    Look, it’s just a speech. I think it’s a very good speech, but at the least it’s a pretty dense collection of Obama’s beliefs on the issue of race in America. It just baffles me when people take a pretty short piece of text and say things about it that the speech itself specifically and explicitly decries. I have yet to hear the detractors actually say “here’s why I disagree with what he said” — it’s all “this is why Obama gave the speech” and “here’s why people liked the speech” and “he didn’t really mean what he said in the speech”.

    Do you disagree that most older black people in America grew up in an era in which the cards were stacked against them, which one would expect would form the way they still think about race? Do you disagree that many white Americans resent having to get in line for jobs or education because of racial injustices that they had no part of? Do you disagree that the media spends a huge amount of time trying to slice polls (and indeed in Obama’s case, the candidate himself… “black enough?” “too black?”) by race and sex while ignoring the more substantial debates and differences of opinion that are driving people to the voting booth in incredible numbers? Do you disagree that while the America of today is much different than that of the 60s, that we still see the symptoms of racial tension arise in situations where it is forced to the surface? Do you disagree that it would be better to have these debates in the public sphere rather than through continually talking behind our hands?

    If you want to insist that that Obama’s primary goal here was cynical and political, fine. Certainly I think in the end it was politically impressive as it’s turned a furor into a gold star among many voters and superdelegates. But that doesn’t change that there is a lot of substance to this speech that I think is very hard to deny or dismiss.

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    ymatt’s questions were rhetorical for anyone but you. In your case I truly wonder how you would answer each and am almost cringing at the thought you might reply.

  24. shcb Says:


    In the interest of brevity I answered most of your points when I said “under any other circumstances this speech would have been historic”. It still may be but not in the sense I meant it. I meant that statement to reflect most of what you said. But this was really two speeches intertwined. The first speech was the one the press showed up for, it was the “I didn’t sleep with that woman” speech. This is the one that the press touted the morning of, maybe even the evening before, I wasn’t watching. They were treated to the second speech, one of, as you say, a wonderful trip down memory lane of how race relations have changed over the years and how youngsters today think so differently than their parents and grandparents, as it should be. The cynic wonders how much the second was a smoke screen for the first. To give this cynicism validity we exibit Michelle Obama’s various remarks and Obama’s remarks about Supreme Court justice selection and his remarks of how troubles in Africa will be one of his highest priorities. We throw White’s long record of America hating and such and we start to see a pattern develop. Especially since this man is so much a part of these two people’s past. This pattern is decidedly not pro American, if not anti American. It is appropriate to question this pattern and then “we report, you decide”

  25. shcb Says:


    If you’re referring to the rhetorical questions in Matt’s second to last paragraph, It appears I would agree with Matt on every item. They are all sensible, well thought out points.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    And my comment was out-of-line. Upon re-reading ymatt’s rhetorical questions more carefully, I regret what I wrote in regards to how they might relate to you. I was wrong and I apologize. Sorry shcb. :-)

  27. shcb Says:


    no problems mate, does this mean I have a freebee insult I can use on you sometime? :)

  28. knarlyknight Says:

    Ha! To the contrary – you could start apologizing now for past transgressions and I’ll tell you when to stop. :-)

  29. shcb Says:

    that sounds like a trap my wife would set for me

  30. enkidu Says:

    Rev Wright responds to NYT smear:

    March 11, 2007

    Jodi Kantor
    The New York Times
    9 West 43rd Street
    New York,
    New York 10036-3959

    Dear Jodi:

    Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

    For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

    I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

    I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

    Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

    As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

    I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

    Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

    The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

    Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

    Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

    Sincerely and respectfully yours,

    Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
    Trinity United Church of Christ

  31. ymatt Says:

    Wow, that’s a hell of a letter.

  32. NorthernLite Says:


  33. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, what did Fox have to say about this letter? Rosen? Anyone?

  34. shcb Says:


    A combination of what I said on the 21st and 24th pretty much covers it. The speech wasn’t technically great and he didn’t distance himself from the pastor as much as they would like. It was hard to say if they wanted the apology because that would put them (conservatives) in a win – win situation or they though an apology is the right thing to do. Probably a combination of the two, more the former than the later.

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    From that reply it sounds as if Fox and other right wing news sources did not even mention the Pastor’s March 11 letter to the Times.

    No surprise and so much for “fair and balanced.”

  36. enkidu Says:

    their tagline actually has a typo
    it is supposed to be: fauxNEWZ! fairly unbalanced

    rwnjs – wrong

  37. shcb Says:

    I’m not sure that letter was even available on the 17th or 18th whatever day that was, but I don’t see what that would have had to do with the subject that evening which was the speech and the relationship with Wright. I don’t see how those things change after reading that letter, in fact it seems a conservative outlet would have used that letter as more incriminating evidence of the radicalism of the pastor. in any event I think it would have been too insignificant to be newsworthy that evening.

  38. shcb Says:

    I also understand Wright is no longer on Obama’s advisory council. Maybe a little damage control?

  39. NorthernLite Says:

    Seriously, this he said/she said crap is getting ridiculous. Does anyone remember Billy Graham and some of the stuff the he said? Does that mean everyone who heard him say these things hates America?

    How about the war?

    How about the economy?

    How about the environment?

    Is Guantanamo Bay still hosting people in cages without trials for years?

    How about the fact that before the illegal invasion of Iraq the price of oil was like $30/barrel and is now like a $105/barrel?

    Who is making the extra hundreds of billions? Oh right, countries that are hostile to the US and Big Oil. Way to make America safer, Bushie.

    I could go on, but it appears that what some preacher said whatever time ago is a more pressing issue.

  40. NorthernLite Says:

    Sorry, that was my rant. I feel better now. (Friday afternoon, cold beer…)


  41. shcb Says:

    I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother

    “Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” the senator said.

    Glad I’m not his grandma

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    yea, if you were his grandma I am certain he would not feel comfortable staying at your house.

  43. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, this is for you:


  44. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, these are for you:



    www . alternet.org/story/78649/

  45. knarlyknight Says:

    And just so we here know what it is all about if Iran lashes out soon, here is something of quite profound importance (that I’d be interested to hear whether or not shcb’s Fox / RW radio buddies have reported about yet):

    excerpt of that follows:

    But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

    So who made it official?

    A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world’s financial institutions under the title: “Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity.”

    FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN’s role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) “calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad.”

    UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.

    As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world “to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran’s AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions” with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran’s banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN’s list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions.

  46. shcb Says:

    So since the UN ok’ed it from the start would that make this war legal?

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    I’d guess this particular “battle”, certainly not a war. But you’re the expert, right?

  48. shcb Says:

    Well, you used the word ‘war’ in first sentence of the quote you provided. You kind of lost me with that last comment. You guys have all been saying the “war” in Iraq is illegal because the UN didn’t sanction it. So does this mean if we go to war with Iran it will be legal? I’m trying to back you into a corner so you can’t use that logic when the bullets start flying in Iran. Which they inevitably will.

  49. Cassandra Says:

    C.jab says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:22p.m.

    I don’t understand why, there is so much, negativity, comming in to play. Why are all of these Minister’s being so “Omagan”, with Obama? I don’t believe that Obama is involved with that many, unsavory people, nor is he involved in all of these dishonest, transactions. What I do believe, is that somebody, is using, “computer manipulation”. And Why is it that after almost 30 to 40 years, “Ted Kennedy” would be found doing something illegal, concerning “oil spillage?” I believe that its a conspiracy. Every thing that the media has been showing, has been to add fuel to the flames. Nobody has really tried to go to the heart of the issues.
    Yes, O.k., we get it,” Obama isn’t perfect.” But he’s willing to make a stand as a leader. And I’m willing, to give him every one of my opportunities, to make it happen. I love the way, that Obama, is able to come a cross, as a stong political leader, and still convey a glimmer, of inperfection.

    Unlike other persidential candidates, who’ve shown us, this view of them, being totallly capable of running our country. Only to screw it up, during their term. Now I believe that Obama will be an awsome leader.
    And when you think things threw. Don’t forget, that the rest of the world, does not, place women, in high reguard. Hilliary will not be able, to sway these male dominated, countries. Now I would love to see a lady as pres. but not right now. Men in other countries, are not willing, to have women, in charge, yet, because they killed that one lady that was a leader over there, if you recall. Now I wouldn’t mind it if she were to be Obama’s vice, if I could trust, the fact that Obama would’nt be assassinated. But I think that some body some where might do just that so she’d be the pres..

  50. NorthernLite Says:


    What did you think of that socialist move to bail out that huge investment bank (Bear Sterns) with taxpayer money?

    If you agee with it, do you think it would be nice if assistance to the middle-class was offered? Or would that be too socialist?

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    Good Question NL. The bail-outs and perks from the Bush regime to big business over the past eight years has been astounding. Lord have pity on the middle class individuals and the small corporate players, they are being squashed.

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    Cassandra – fair comments and I think you voiced a lot of things people do not normally dare to speak about for fear of invoking a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    My sympathies for Pakistan’s recent loss, indeed humanity’s loss.

    One item, you forget Margaret Thatcher; then again I always suspected Margaret was a mean transvestite.

  53. shcb Says:


    I haven’t heard anything about the Bear Sterns thing, I’ll look into it. As a general rule I’m against government intrusion in the form of bail outs. I have always thought the most important aspect of Schumpeter’s writings was the “creative destruction” of capitalism. Now with banking there may be a legitimate reason since it is so heavily regulated, but I just don’t know enough about this particular case. Even if I come to find out I approve of this bail out it will be with my nose held firmly between my fingers.

    You would have to be more specific as to help for the middle class. Cutting some government spending with a subsequent reduction in taxes across the board (including the middle class) would be fine with me. Rejecting Obama’s plan to tax the middle class to give more to the poor would be fine with me as well.


    The reason this flap with Obama and his pastor is such a big deal is because a) we don’t have a lot of voting history on the man b) he and his wife have made past remarks that are troubling and c) it’s the make or break part of the political season and all sides will do whatever they can to gain an advantage. This part of campaigns isn’t pretty and it isn’t fair, but it is what it is. As you become more politically savvy you will learn to filter a lot of this out. Don’t let this nastiness spoil your quest for knowledge of the candidates views or the political process, but some of it you have to learn to ignore. Good to have you aboard.

  54. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks shcb.

    Obama has a plan to tax the middle-class? Where did you see/here that?

  55. shcb Says:


    For this one let’s go directly to the horse’s mouth, Obama’s web page:

    The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

    So who is going to take up the slack of those 10mil poor folks, the middle class of course. But wait, there is more. Vote Obama today and you will also receive “Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit” not a lot of specifics on this on his web page but when you look at the proposal we see how this works. The way the EITC works is if you are poor and have kids you can qualify for the EITC. If you have a tax liability after the normal deductions the feds (read middle class) will pay your tax bill up to the amount of your qualification under EITC. Now of course you probably qualify for more than your bill. Under the Obama plan you will receive a check for the balance. So now I’m not only paying the taxes of some woman who didn’t pay attention in high school enough to graduate but also didn’t have the brains to realize that breeding to a lazy man would result in a kid she can’t afford, now I’m also going to buy her a wide screen TV with her April Christmas bonus. Whether the current middle class pays for it with higher taxes or future middle classes pay for it with an increase in debt, the middle class will pay for it.

    But wait, there’s more! The next ten callers will also receive the rest of the laundry list of Obama’s poor peoples vote purchasing, read the rest of the page and see what your vote will buy at the expense of those rich white folks. (definition of rich for this purpose is somewhere around 100-120k, a teacher and fireman with 2 kids and a mortgage).


  56. enkidu Says:

    rwnj – you forgot to blame (your words) “Negroes and Jews”
    o wait, your dog whistle racism is showing yet again, you pretty much did…

  57. shcb Says:

    I’m just keeping on the subject of the thread, referring to speeches of the good Reverend, don’t want Craig to get on me about being off topic.

    nm, I got that without looking it up!!!

  58. NorthernLite Says:


    He is going to roll back the Bush tax cuts to the weatliest Americans, like 2% of the population, to pay for tax cuts to the poor. The nerve!

    Funny how I can know that and I’m not even a citizen of your country.

    Your twisting of facts may work on some people, but not here and not with me, my friend.

    And I dont think someone who supports Bush is in a position to talk about potential debt, or any financial policy for that matter.

  59. NorthernLite Says:

    Your free, and freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it will take time to restore chaos and order. But we will.

    George W. Bush
    Washington, D.C. April 2003

  60. knarlyknight Says:

    NL, LOL
    every once in a while a little truth slips out.

  61. shcb Says:


    I’ve never quite understood this mentality that it is ok to steal a man’s Lexus because he can afford another one but it isn’t ok to steal a man’s 12 year old Toyota because he can’t.

    Of course Obama is going to take the money from the top 2% they are the folks that pay taxes, here are some numbers to chew on.

    In 1981 the top 1% paid 17% of all income taxes, now they pay 39.4%, the top 5% paid 35.% in ’81 and now pay 59.7%. In 1981 the lower 50% ($30,000 or less in today’s dollars) paid 7.5% of taxes today they pay 3.1% and Obama wants that 3.1% to be less because that is where he gets his votes.

    Imagine if at Matt’s caucus the other night the guy at the podium had divided the room into 3 groups, the top 1200 wage earners on one side of the room and the lower 2000 on the other side and told the group of 1200 to write a $3,000 check and give it to one of the people on the other side of the room. I’m thinking there might be some decent even among Democrats.

    So you have an idea of wage levels for these groups, 1% are above $365k, 5% $365-$145k and lower 50% below $30k, so I’m guessing your 2% is somewhere around a quarter mil per year. Upper middle class for sure, doctors lawyers, successful small business owners, management level of large corporation, that sort of thing, but certainly not Nancy P or Ted Kennedy rich.

    One last set of numbers, the top 1% make 21.2%of the income in America, they pay 39.4% of taxes. The lower 50% make 12.8% of the money and pay 3.1% of taxes.

    Remember this disparity is after the Bush tax cuts to the “rich”. These numbers will be worse, or better depending on your point of view before Bush, and after Obama.

  62. enkidu Says:

    the bush tax cuts did indeed disproportionately benefit the rich – fact

    your numbers need references
    (no Macho Mike Rosen or Rush Oxycontin Limpbaugh, please)

    anyone want to hit wiki and the great and powerful goog to prove or disprove rwnj’s #s? I am volunteering at my son’s kindergarden class (schools are really hurting). All i know is during Clinton’s Presidency I made (not stock run up btw) up to 4X as much as during dumbya’s presiduncy. 4X. Heck of a job bushie!

    It is called a progressive income tax. If you don’t like it, move to Dubai or one of those eastern european ex-soviet countries. FDR asked ALL Americans to sacrifice to win WW2. dumbya? git outcher credit cawrdz!

  63. shcb Says:

    the numbers are from the IRS compiled by Rosen, sorry, he is an economist by trade. I’m always open to someone disproving my (or Rosen’s numbers) kindergardeners welcome. You may think this kind of tax disparity is just fine and want even more of it, I don’t. but the numbers won’t change they are what they are. The problem is when people say “off with their heads! it’s just the top 2 percent” without any context of who those rich folks are, it gets a little more personal when you realize you are at about 4% and the bar is moving down to where it will soon be your head. If Obama wants to run on a platform that he is going to expand the welfare state to include 10 million more people and send a 4 digit check to millions more fine. Run Barack run!

  64. shcb Says:

    I think it is funny that you are so upset about Bush somehow taking your income away from you but don’t mind Obama taking your income from you directly. Oh, that’s right, you’re not in the 2% so it’s ok to take money from others but leave my rice bowl alone. The fun never stops.

  65. enkidu Says:

    you have been drinking too much rwnj koolaid
    I think those numbers are bunk

    let me give you some of my numbers: I would be willing to have 5% or even (gasp!) 10% more in new taxes on my income if I am making 4X more money. Generous aint I?!? ;-)

    Democratic leadership is better for the economy, the stock market and people the world over (less chance of bungled wars).

    For example tho Dems have been in power for only 42.8% of the time during the last 60 years, the markets advanced 15.26% under their tenure. Under R mismanagement, fraud, waste and war profiteering, markets advanced only 9.5% despite Rs being in power 57% of the time.

    Go back further in time (say when dumbya’s rollmodel Hoover screwed the pooch and I bet it would be even worse. Include the last two years (that article was from 3/06) and the numbers are even worse for the ‘party of business’.

    But don’t let reason be your guide. Just keep electing jingositic incompetent douchebags you funky rwnj voters, you!

    I look forward to Obama beating McSame in November.

  66. NorthernLite Says:

    so shcb…

    You think a small busniess owner should pay just as much tax as, oh, let’s say, Microsoft?


  67. shcb Says:

    I don’t think Microsoft should pay any taxes at all. just as a small business (sub s corp) does now. so yes they should pay the same amount, zero.

  68. NorthernLite Says:


    You should move to Antarctica. I hear they have zero taxes and a kick ass nightlife.

  69. shcb Says:


    If you tax a corporation they pass the cost to the consumer, the consumer pays the tax. What is so weird about that realization. You see corporations as bad, they are just a bunch of people banded together to realize a common goal, just like a labor union, a church congregation, boy scout troop, etc. Employees pay income taxes, including top executives. When a corporation makes a profit they pay dividends to the stockholders who pay income taxes. Taxes, like those wages, raw material, advertising costs, equipment cost and everything else to make the company run are passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. That’s the way a Schedule C corporation works.

    In a Sub S corporation which is what most small businesses are, the owner of the company holds all the common stock, there are no stockholders. At the end of the year all the profits or losses of the company are transferred to the owner’s personal taxes. The advantage of this to the small business owner is they do not have to pay themselves a wage, or can pay themselves a small wage. Since so many small businesses are seasonal or live in a feast or famine environment cash flow sometimes require the owner doesn’t get a paycheck for a while. Then of course he gets a big check to make up for it. So the government takes a quarterly token and makes up for it at the end of the year. Bottom line is no taxes are passed on to the consumer because there are no corporate taxes. So I’m not against taxes, but corporate taxes are just a liberal feel good, us against them shell game. But it will get you the Democratic nomination to say “I will make those dirty corporations pay more taxes so you can have a big screen TV like those rich people”. And those foolhardy minions don’t realize they are buying their own TV after government takes it’s vig.


    I don’t care what you do with your money, the IRS will take a check, you said during the Clinton years you were making four times what you do now, did you send the government an extra 5 or 10% then?

    The article is simplistic of course since the government only has a limited amount of leverage on the economy. But even if it did have more power, the House controls the purse strings not the President, so to understand the ups and downs of the market you would have to take all those things into consideration, not just who is in the White House. And none of that refutes my statistics anyway, it is just a smoke screen because you have nothing. Is the kindergarten class doing any better?

  70. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think corporations are bad, never said such a thing. I actually work for Microsoft and they treat me very well.

    If you don’t think anyone should pay taxes, how would pay the cost of invading countries, military salaries? Doesn’t the army defend the interests of busniess as well? Shouldn’t they pay for that protection?


    As I’ve said before, taxes are the admission price to a well-functioning democracy. The higher the price, the better the venue.

    Seriously, you should check Antarctica.

  71. knarlyknight Says:


    Question: Without corporate taxes on “schedule C” corporations (I’m not familiar with corporate taxes in the USA) , wouldn’t there be an even greater tendancy for coprorate controllers to keep the income within the corporation and drastically increase the perks to its officers as “business expenses”?

    E.g. that CEO’s summer “cottage” in the Hamptons could be owned by the corporation as a satellite “office” for the exclusive use of the CEO and his family in summer. Conrad Black comes to mind; although I haven’t been following that either.

    Taxing income, whether it is income from a vegetable vendor in the local market or a “schedule C” corporation like microsoft, helps cut down the number of silly bugger games played such as described above; or, perhaps other schemes involving retaining earnings within the Corporation until that summer “cottage” or some tax avoidance opportunity arises.

    FYI – Another plus for you is that there are no gophers in Antarctica.

  72. enkidu Says:

    it’s prairie dogs (he loves him some shooting)

    rwnj – you haven’t backed up any of your numbers. not one. Why should I bother to take you at your word? I showed real numbers, real money, real growth. You have some rwnj hate radio blabbermouth telling you what you want to hear. I should just trust Macho Mike eh?

    If I am making 4X as much again during the Obama years and the gov asks for 5 or 10% more, I would be happy to oblige. Maybe we can pay down the debt, control gov spending like during the Clinton years and we can set off another wave of growth and investment. First we have to clean up after dumbya and the neocon catastrophe. Heck of a job, bushie!

  73. knarlyknight Says:

    okay prairie dogs then. He could take some to Antarctica – they’ll freeze solid and will be good for shooting over and over again. Endless fun.

    shcb – I heard a week or two ago that a huge grass/brush fire was started on the edge of Calgary by a couple of yahoo landowners with a rodenator, so it might not be such a great idea…

  74. shcb Says:


    :-) just goes to show there are rednecks everywhere, if some Molson wasn’t involved I would be supprised. I’ll answer your tax questions tonight, it will take more than a couple minutes

  75. knarlyknight Says:

    please keep it short and don’t waste too much time on it, your gettin them rascally pd’s is more important.

    Molson might be a good bet, but the area is full of high priced estates so my guess would be a case of overpriced micro-brewery or a heineken-like import.

  76. shcb Says:

    I stand corrected. but you know I can’t keep it short. I have an hour or so before my wife gets back from dog classes (Ebo gets to bite Pat tonight so he will be real happy when he gets home) anyway I have an hour and you guys get it all. :-)

  77. shcb Says:

    well, I’ve tried four times, maybe tomorrow

  78. shcb Says:

    since it isn’t going through, see my response here;


  79. NorthernLite Says:

    I think I read that same post at:


  80. shcb Says:

    After conceding this would be revenue neutral I think your last post reinforces something we have all known, liberals want to use the tax structure to punish the achievers not raise monies to run the government.

  81. knarlyknight Says:

    Punish? At some point you have to ask how many vacation homes, luxury cars, and jet fuelled vacations does one individual require; and whether such profligate wasting of resources might be scaled back some in order to send some poor kids to college or help a single mother feed her kids.

    What kind of a dirtbag would characterize that as punishment?

  82. shcb Says:

    One that believes in the concept of personal property being personal property. Libery and freedom if you will. most of the people you’re describing contribute to the Democratic party, you wouldn’t want to take their stuff and turn them into Republicans would you?

  83. ymatt Says:

    I think you guys are talking past each other at the extremes of tax policy. I don’t think knarly is advocating a communistic redistribution of wealth and I don’t think shcb thinks that all people should bear an equal amount of the tax burden.

    Our current tax policy is very far from either of these extremes. Those who earn more money still enjoy the benefits but those at the bottom of the economic ladder are not being taxed to hunger (many are not taxed at all). The argument is only one of degrees.

  84. shcb Says:

    That is absolutely correct, and I said as much in the post that didn’t go through:
    I am resigned to the fact we will always have a progressive tax, and to the point that I don’t want to tax people to hunger as you so apply put it I agree. What I find disturbing and maybe even dangerous is the notion that government should decide when someone has “enough” and everything above that point should be confiscated. I know I am exaggerating that just a little, but only a bit, there was a proposal a few years back, a real piece of legislation to tax people above a certain level 100% of their income, and you can bet it was a liberal who proposed that legislation. You can see it in a couple of NL’s remarks about how it’s not wrong to take from rich people and give to poor people. Between my wife and I we make around 140 – 150k between our real jobs and various other investments and money making hobbies, we’re not poverty stricken but we certainly aren’t rich either, at least from my perspective, but of course there is some guy in Five Points (the slum area of Denver) that is lucky to make 8 or 10,000 who looks at me as the richest man on the planet, I don’t want him to think it is ok to take my stuff simply because I have so much more than he does. Jimmy Buffett makes around 30 million from what I hear for singing 30 year old songs. That kind of wealth is as unimaginable to me as mine is to the bum on Five Points. So I don’t want Jimmy’s stuff because I know there is someone who wants mine.

    Back to Obama, what I don’t like about his proposal is it admittedly will make 10 million more people non tax payers, that is just entirely the wrong direction we want to go, we want more people taking ownership in this country, not less, even if it’s only a token amount.

  85. ymatt Says:

    I guess I’m not sure what paying taxes has to do with “ownership” of the country. Do you think that forcing low-income citizens to cut into their tight budgets will somehow make them want to work to improve the nation? It’s just way too far separated from day-to-day reality to matter.

    I don’t believe it’s the wrong direction to see that there’s a growing economic gap that doesn’t have anything to do with a gap between people’s willingness to work more or less hard. I’m also not saying that those who earn millions don’t deserve it, but certainly the greater their income, the greater the benefits that they personally enjoy from our government’s use of tax dollars. For that reason, it is only fair that they bear a (much) greater burden of the taxation, especially since the actual income generated from those at the lower end of the bracket is so relatively insignificant by comparison. Why not ease the burden on those for whom taxation cuts into standard of living while moderately increasing it for those who will still fully enjoy the benefits of their wealth and who are so much closer to the effects of national policy? As Warren Buffett pointed out, he currently pays a lesser percentage of his income to taxes than does his housekeeper.

    As for your 100% taxation example, that’s really just a straw man. I don’t support such a thing, Obama doesn’t, and I doubt anybody here does.

  86. shcb Says:

    Well, ownership goes to human nature, I’m not sure I can explain it any better than that. This discussion started with the elimination of corporate taxes so getting back to that, even the extremely poor pay taxes, if they buy a pack of Juicy Fruit they are paying a little tiny portion of Wrigley’s corporate taxes, I would be happy with them just paying that tax out of their pocket instead of that tax being hidden in the cost of the chewing gum. It’s a small thing and it will only be effective on the people in the margins, but that is how you make progress, at the margins.

    but certainly the greater their income, the greater the benefits that they personally enjoy from our government’s use of tax dollars.

    I’m not so sure about that, that is one of those statements that one side will use percentages and the other will use real dollars. I would make the argument that the poor “need” government more than the rich or even the middle class, but that is a statement that would make an interesting debate but would probably be left unresolved.

    Warren has gotten more and more of a populist in his later years, don’t know why. The reason Jimmy’s uncle can make a cavalier remark like that is that his income comes from investments, not actual work. Investment money is taxed at a lower rate because that money has been taxed already in the vast majority of cases. This is why Buffett’s tax rate is lower that his housekeeper’s income tax, the rate of his housekeeper’s tax on investments is the same as her boss’s, provided she has investments.

    I so heavily prefaced my 100% tax remarks so they wouldn’t be a straw man. (That remark is for the peanut gallery, Knarly and Enky are at their keyboards as we speak trying to figure how to use “straw man” in a sentence)

  87. knarlyknight Says:

    As i see it after reading the last few posts, YMATT came out the victor and shcb gave up (without changing his opinions, which have become more clearly erroneous to the spectators thanks to ymatt.) 

    shcb strategy at that point is to abruptly change the subject (whoops, this discussion started with corp. taxes so getting back to that now boys…) then throow out some incindiary comments about me and Enk – likely hoping that more posts from us will help to bury his defeat at the hands of the ever affable ymatt.

    shcb – nice point about buffet’s investment income tax rate being the same as his housekeepers, however I even find that hard to believe. I’d bet buffet has plenty of tax shelters and tricks unavailable to the houseekeeper so that his investment tax rate is actually significantly lower than his housekeepers investment tax rate… doesn’t really matter as you say cuz the housekeeper can probably only dream of having any investments of substance, barring lotteries or a major re-calibration of the social contract in America.

  88. shcb Says:


    The reason for my rather rude remark is that every time I get in a discussion with Mat you, being the consummate follower, pop in about this time and tell Matt what excellent points he has made and Enky submits one of his misspelled diatribes, and Matt goes away and I don’t get to finish the discussion with him. I was pleasantly surprised that you at least made a point worth making in your last paragraph.

    You have graciously illustrated one of the main points of this discussion. We all want equality, conservatives want equal opportunity, liberals want equal outcomes. I haven’t read much about Warren Buffett’s early years but I have read “A pirate looks at 50” which is pretty much an autobiography of Jimmy and it seems Jimmy’s dad was certainly comfortable but not rich so I don’t think the boys came from money to give Warren a head start. As long as the tax shelters are available to the housekeeper we have equality, if she isn’t smart enough, or hard working enough, or lucky enough she may not be as successful, that can’t be helped, well it can by forcibly taking from one pocket to the other, and then we have equal outcome. I don’t know what is erroneous about that, it is just two different ways of looking at the world, one will ultimately lead to something resembling America, the other something resembling the Soviet Union. Usually it will stagnate somewhere about France. Take your choice

  89. ymatt Says:

    The reason you don’t get to finish discussions with me is you keep insisting on instead arguing with cartoons by saying things like “liberals want equal outcomes”. Nobody (okay, negligibly few) wants communism. I certainly don’t want to give up the lifestyle that I’ve worked hard for.

    The argument here is over what constitutes equal opportunity. When much of the population has their flat tax cutting into their budget for education or health care while a small group only has taxes cutting into their amount of disposable wealth then I would say no. Notice that I don’t advocate redistributing all disposable wealth — that would be insane. I say only that a relatively small amount of disposable wealth from those at the top of the economic ladder would offset the taxes of millions who can’t afford true equal opportunity.

  90. shcb Says:

    and I say we are already doing that. almost half the people in this country are net tax recievers when that tips to over half we are in a situation where the net tax recievers can vote to take the wealth of the net tax payers as we are seeing in France.

  91. knarlyknight Says:

    Good observation ymatt, it is silly to defend against a cartoon caricature of your position that is asserted by shcb to represent your position when in fact it resembles far more an insanity than anything you said yourself.

    Problem is, that has been the modus operandi of the republicans since Rove moved in, and it is brutally effective in its stifling of informed debate.

    NL – here’s a tidbit about Bush from Ronald Reagon’s diary:

    an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George “W” in his diary, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper Collins

    “A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his n’er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.”
    From the REAGAN DIARIES——entry dated May 17, 1986.

  92. shcb Says:

    sorry, missed it by that much


  93. NorthernLite Says:

    lol knarly,

    At least it gives every slacker dumbass kind out there the hope that, hey, obviously you dont have to work hard or be intelligent to be president.

  94. knarlyknight Says:

    yea thanks shcb, i logged on to post the same thing, you beat me to it. Sorry about that and judos for catching it so fast.

    On the other hand, Snopes doesn’t record this as false:


  95. shcb Says:


    No problem. That one didn’t sound right from the beginning. Anyone who has actually studied the two men and watched them in a detached and objective manner would know that simply doesn’t describe Bush, now it may have then but not now. From what I understand he is very organized, thoughtful and intelligent. Reagan also would not have said something like that, at least not in a document that was destined for history. He simply wasn’t a man to belittle people, he was tough and would give you a piece of his mind, but it simply wasn’t in his upbringing to make someone small. Reagan had also played the political game all his life, from being president of the Screen Actors Guild to the presidency. It would have been in a moment of weakness for him to have burnt a bridge like that with a statement that had no significance. Let alone write it down in a historical document.

    That link didn’t work was it supposed to or was that a joke?

    An underestimated enemy will defeat you everytime.

  96. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks shcb.

  97. Cassandra Says:

    I don’t claim to know to much about politics and things like that. But I can comprehend, why Obama would surround himself with unsavory people.
    Now this is simply my “oppion.” I think that he may have spent time with these kinds of people to gain more insight, on the different asspects, of the human mind. The more view points, that you can relate to, the better off we are. In response to Northernlite’s Comment:
    Northernlite it sound like you’ve been dippen in to the Southercomfort…..Hic,up……..
    I looked at that black and white drawing. I got it, but I think that they should have had, “Bill O’reilly’s face ,or, one of the Blonde’s from off of the Fox New’s station sitting down in the chair in the last frame of that commic. Because they just don’t get it.
    When I listen to the canidates speak. I am comfortable with Obama, but when I try to listen to Hil-lier-y, …….. Well I don’t believe in her. Now I am able to see, that Obama is, starting to sound more, and more, like a regular politition.
    I think that stems from, (this is my oppion of course) but I think it’s because, some people were getting tired, of his speech on, “Hope.” So he had to alter it to show them, that he is capable, of adjusting to what, (We the people want.)
    Hil-lier-y Clinton is a hypocrite. I type this because, she started up the complaint….Because of something she saw, on “YOU-TUBE ” Her comment to Obama was. “I think that we should ask Obama if he needs another pillow.” indicating that Obama is getting some kind of special treatment. In one aspect he was. Because every one was enthrolled with his stong presents on and off the screen.
    In my oppion (I think that the reason that some people keep saying that they don’t know anything about Obama), is because they are looking at him, like this,…….
    1)He know’s some guy who use to make bombs 40yrs. ago.
    2)His Pastor has some strong oppions on our countries
    3) What is wife said.
    4) How he worded his comments.
    These thing’s here have some people getting scared because, they might be thinking ( this is only my oppion though)……. Oh my GOD, and we use to degrade them on so many levels. What if their still repulsed by what our for faters had done to them. And lash out at us. Yes I think that some people are scared. Just because he knows the guy who made bombs 40yrs. (Shit he might just try to make one to blow us up.) Or …..Oh my GOD, he might see us the way “Rev. Wright” talks about us.
    Come on people, you know, and I know, that this is not the way that Obama is. So just relax, and give him a chance.
    We learn of seperation…..so that we can come together. We learn of what hate is… so that we understand how to love one another.
    It’s our differences, that are able to unite us. This has been the first election, that I have gotten this involved, I have never felt so compelled, to get involved. I’ve been listening to the canidates and Obama made me feel as though, I mattered to his candidacy. That he needed me, for more, than just my vote. I believed in not only him, but I believed, in myself. I believed that I mattered.
    We must keep alive, our hope, I press a question towards every one who may read my comments.
    Aside from all of the media’s hype, and dirty politics being played.
    (Who inspires you, to want to be a better person? )

  98. shcb Says:


    He didn’t spend time with these people to gain insight, you don’t have to spend twenty years with someone to gain insight, about twenty minutes with either of these guys is enough. Would you be so forgiving if Obama’s friends had burned crosses on the front yards of black folks a couple decades ago? To answer your question, no one in this group inspires me.

  99. enkidu Says:


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.