Showing posts with label RON PAUL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RON PAUL. Show all posts
FW: Now this is funny!!!
Subject: FW: Now this is funny!!!
I don't care what your political views are this is funny!!!! The guy in the background has figured out something is just not quite right, but obummer is oblivious.
FW: interesting point of view........
Curator's note: This is a strange version of this previously-posted RW FWD:
> While I do not agree with everything she says, ?I think she presents an interesting point of view.?
> An interesting? Black woman's view:
>
> Anne Wortham is Black, an Associate Professor of
> Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing
> Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover
> Institution.? She is a member of the American Sociological
> Association and the American Philosophical Association.? She
> has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and
> honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National
> Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Ed ucation.? In
> fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who
> were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of
> Ideas."? The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has
> been published in his book, A World of Ideas.? Dr. Wortham is
> author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of
> Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race
> consciousness is transformed into political strategies and
> policy issues.? She has published numerous articles on the
> implications of individual rights for civil rights policy,
> and is currently writing a book on theories of social and
> cultural marginality.? Recently, she has published articles
> on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in
> education, the politics of victimization and the social and
> political impact of political correctness.? Shortly after an
> interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.
>
> This article by her is another point of view......
>
>
> No He Can't
> by Anne Wortham
>
> Fellow Americans,
>
> Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated
> South.? I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron
> Paul's name as my choice for president.? Most importantly, I
> am not race conscious.? I do not require a black president to
> know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth
> living.? I do not require a black president to love the ideal
> of America .
>
> I cannot join you in your celebration.? I feel no
> elation.? There is no smile on my face.? I am not jumping
> with joy.? There are no tears of triumph in my eyes.? For
> such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to
> deny all that I know about the requirements of human
> flourishing and survival, - all that I know about the history
> of the United States of America, all that I know about
> American race relations, and all that I know about Barack
> Obama as a politician.? I would have to deny the nature of
> the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .? Most
> importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain
> understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to
> serfdom that we have been on for over a century.? I would
> have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the
> success of a human life.? I would have to evade your
> rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your
> success and mine depend.? I would have to think it somehow
> rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this
> country voted for a man because he looks like them (that
> blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they
> were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted
> for him because he doesn't look like them.? I would have to
> wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of
> people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill
> posts in his administration, - political intellectuals like
> my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy
> School of Government.
>
> I would have to believe that "fairness" is the
> equivalent of justice.? I would have to believe that man who
> asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new
> service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.? I would
> have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity
> comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that
> he can will it into existence by the use of government force.
> I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of
> living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most
> productive and the generators of wealth.
>
> Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my
> consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying,
> cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting
> "Yes We Can!"? Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of
> all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists,
> editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that
> capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan
> Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular
> version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to
> replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything
> remotely equivalent to capitalism.
>
> So you have made history, Americans.? You and your
> children have elected a black man to the office of the
> president of the United States , the wounded giant of the
> world.? The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is
> over - and that Fonda won.? Eugene McCarthy and George
> McGovern must be very happy men.? Jimmie Carter, too.? And
> the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.
> The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel
> warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black
> person.? So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals,
> 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians.? Toast yourselves,
> Black America .? Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale,
> Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley.? You have elected not an
> individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man
> who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do
> Something!? You now have someone who has picked up the baton
> of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.? But you have also
> foolishly traded your freedom and mine, - what little there
> is left, - for the chance to feel good.? There is nothing in
> me that can share your happy obliviousness.
Fwd: No He Can't
Wow! This is the first thing that my father has sent me that I thought was worth the read. Some things I agree with and some things I don't but worth the read. -Jacqueline
------begin forward-------
Subject: No He Can't
An interesting look at a Black woman's view:
Subject: No He Can't
Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in20Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.
Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctn ess. Shortly after an interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.
______________________________
______________________________ ____________________
No He Can't
by Anne Wortham
Fellow Americans,
Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America .
I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America . Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will i t into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of20all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yours elves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.
RE: Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy
Republicans = experienced adults while Dems = bratty kids?
Thanks Donna for the clip.
"... I'm sending you something that my right wing dad emailed to me today. It's not technically a 'forward' so I'm not sure if it qualifies, but it sure is a load of winger crap. Submitted for your approval! Oh, and notice the misspelling of "no-brainer" that leads off the email..."
-Donna Thanks Donna for the clip.
"... I'm sending you something that my right wing dad emailed to me today. It's not technically a 'forward' so I'm not sure if it qualifies, but it sure is a load of winger crap. Submitted for your approval! Oh, and notice the misspelling of "no-brainer" that leads off the email..."
---begin forwarded message---
He makes this look like a no brainier....
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are. Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individua ls.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000 convictions. Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder value, and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics.
While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a "cradle of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief executive to national office. John McCain's legislative and military career spans five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In that time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as Clinton has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats' experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
