John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly match wits over the recent controversy surrounding rapper Common being invited to the White House for a poetry reading. SPOILER ALERT… never mind, I bet you already know who wins.
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Not Today, My Friend | Breathables Can Breath Easy Next »
Selective Memory
Incorrect source or offensive?
» 320 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Wahoo on Hero’s Shawarma MrsQ Of Philly on GREECE neoritter on Progress Poker !neoritter on Progress Poker vrestal on North Carolina Today Geary on GREECE MrsQ Of Philly on Progress Poker MrsQ Of Philly on Progress Poker Joe Biden on Hero’s Shawarma waggle238 on Time Travel Protester 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Capshunz: I Was Just Trying to Help
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
i only eat
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Me mishurd u...
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Koalafications? Ha!
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Hi Jessie! BLERRRRRRRRG.
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
I'm Not Sure I Like This
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Miracle Bun
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
I Don't Give a Damn About My Bad Reputation
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Shut Up. Pie
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Only You...
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
They'll Never Think to Look For Me in a Rap Video!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
J. Cole Totally Looks Like Javale McGee
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Toasted Squee
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Optometrist Dreams
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Streetfront View
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Taking a cue from John here… there aren’t better things to debate than this?
I’m not a fan of the john stewart show, but i love his head to heads that he has. “we thought you were going to be funny” says idiot in bow-tie
“I’m not going to be your monkey” john stewart.
Booyah.
O’Reilly did okay, but he didn’t have any examples to support his stance.
Its funny, because O’Reilly is stuck defending his opinion no matter what while Jon Stewart is flexible because he contractually obligated to take a particular stance.
did you mean “isn’t contractually obligated…” ?
contractually obligated “journalism” is the very reason why people who are not fox-news watchers have a problem with the network.
Well, same with CNN and MSNBC if you think about it. That’s media for you.
That is why Jon Stewart has so much more credibility than any of the other pundits, for better or worse. He said it himself–people shouldn’t be going to him for news, but they are. It’s because people on actual news networks aren’t allowed to change their minds or nuance their positions.
The people who complain that people get their news from a comedian are the same people who created a world where the most credible news source is a comedian.
If a “reporter” is not allowed to change their mind or nuance their position on their TV show because the station contractually forbids them to do so, then said TV station is not a “news network.”
but they just need to put “news” in their title, and that makes them news, no?
i think what people don’t seem to understand is that news and commentary are two different things. one exists to present facts — our first amendment was intended to protect people who were presenting facts, not (at first at least) an individual’s right of expression. the other, commentary, is set to provide opinions on the subject. and opinions are to be challenged, not accepted as truth.
the substitution of opinion for fact is a problem. facts are stable tings — we see them, we react to them, but they do not change. to half-godwin, hitler led an army to invade another country, the government set up military-run camps that executed their inhabitants or worked them to death, and the military campaign that ensued would have carved a much larger chunk of the world for germany. this is fact. everythign else, even commonly-believed things such as “hitler was evil” or “neville chamberlain was at fault for appeasing germany” or “i like chicken” are all peripheral, and all subject to agreement or disagreement. sure, most people might agree on more than one of these (i mean, chicken is awesome, especially if done right), but it’s still opinion. i think every gneration should look at nazi germany and reexamine the actions and the consequences, to understand our own past as well as the drastic extents to which we as people can move to. i’m pretty sure the judgment will almost always be the same, but that doesn’t mean it’s futile for a new generation to reassess and learn to make those judgments.
I think it’s the mixture of news and commentary that I have a problem with, regardless of sources.
“X did Y for because X believed Z.”
“X did Y”, sure, but “X believed Z” is opinion.
“John eats beef because, I think, he hates cows.” (a non-political version)
John might eat beef, but the rest is opinion.
Bravo. About damned time someone understands this.
You can’t explain it!
Lol…funny….but I will mention in all seriousness that this isn’t the first time he’s been on O’Reilly’s show. He totally stomps all over O’Reilly in the first one as well.
Here’s the thing. O’Reilly is actually the most open minded person at Fox News (at least in front of the camera). Also I assume the person that laughed at John’s joke is now looking for a job.
being the most open-minded pundit at fox news might be like being the skinniest kid at fat camp, as stewart himself has said, or like the least violent crip, the sober-est irish stereotype, or the nicest security guard at auchwitz.
The leper with the most fingers left?
BOOYAH!
LIKE. A. BOSS.
What does AC stand for?
Atlantic City?
Alternating Current?
Air Conditioning?
Another Canadian?
Huh, you can really tell the rough areas of the continent that we are all in by how we interpret two little letters.
Absentminded Columbian? No wait…
Arabic Cyprian? hey, maybe…
African Coder?
AHA! Now you have NO IDEA where I’m from!
Wrong! Your s/n gives it away. Obviously, you are in Baltimore.
Anderson Cooper! Of course.
Another win for Stewart! Has anyone been keeping score? I’m pretty sure Stewart is winning but what is the score?
10-love ?
Sounds about right.
If it’s the same system used for scoring tennis, that would mean that Jon has only scored once.
Tennis scoring makes absolutely no sense.
*shrugs*
It’s French.
What do you mean?
Fifteen love.
Thirty love.
Thirty fifteen.
Forty fifteen.
Forty thirty.
Deuce.
Advantage Stewart.
Game Point.
Remember, tennis was invented by a man. That’s why “love” means “nothing”.
“Love” = L’oeuf = the egg = a big fat zero (see “goose egg” in English idiom)=O’Reilly
Never knew that.
*gasp!*
I learned something today :’D
Which reminds me. I’ve heard that all French recipes only need one egg. Why?
Because “one egg” is “un oeuf”.
You sly bastard.
i will disagree with your scoring of the points, sir… i think this is clearly a muddled game until stewart lands the last line and unequivocally stomps o’reilly into the dust.
the problem with actual analysis of information is that it takes longer than a sentence or two. truth and understanding of truth are not sound bytes. if an extended argument is paralleled by an example that is patently false, or disagreed with by another party, that’s a huge deal.
i want to see what happens next, because this is great. it’s also the first clip of o’reilly i’ve seen where he’s not setting up his guest without opportunity or time to answer, and isn’t interrupting constantly.
Perhaps it means that O’Reilly actually respects Stewart.
Who doesn’t respect Jon Stewart, he’s Jewish, a New Yorker and he’s America’s most respected journalist, you don’t fvck with a man/god like that
Also I think O’Reilly didn’t want to give Stewart any additional fuel to mock him with.
I suspect it’s more the latter than anything else…
I think that maybe it was because of Brian William’s giant head hovering behind Jon Stewart, intimidating O’Reilly.
Those four qualities are very true. There’s one more- he’s not full of himself. He held a rally with 250,000 people in front of him, and millions watching on TV, and didn’t make it about himself or his personality. He made it something to inspire us, a reassure us that things aren’t as partisan, divided, or hyped up as the media paints them.
^This.^ (I was there, all by myself, yet I never felt a moment of ‘alone in a crowd’-ness. Instead, I ran around and took pictures of signs that made me laugh. Damn battery died around the 200 mark!):
All I’m going to say about this controversy is that it is decisions like this one that lead to people making a connection between Obama and Marxism. Someone who is an outspoken supporter of a Black Liberation Army (Marxists, terrorists) member, who is a fugitive and convicted murderer, should probably not be invited to a function like this unless you don’t mind the connection being made to the administration as well.
By the way, I’m not saying he shouldn’t invite him. I’m just saying that if these are the people you choose to rub shoulders with as President, you should be ready to answer questions about their politics as well as your own. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
RACIST!
ASSUMER!
PENGUIN!
Wait…
SOMETHING!
LOUD NOISES!
lol, ANGRY SHOUTING!
Actually, nevermind. Because that’s what Jon’s Rally to Restore Sanity was all about- shouting doesn’t accomplish much. Maybe for the lulz, though…
i think that this is the difference between the left and the right, in a strange sort of way.
the wright issue was an uncomfortable one, because it was about a strange take on racism. how the american public reacted to the case was polar and divisive along racial, not party, lines. people who have been discriminated against, or have felt on constant watch for that discrimination had sympathy for wright, but felt he was using the presidential campaign for personal gain. many others, almost exclusively white, made a big deal over the way he phrased parts of his argument. i watched a few clips, some ten or twenty minutes long, and i generally got his in-context message. and i realized i couldn’t agree with it because i have never been put into the place to experience what he was angry about. for me, the issue was closed.
bill ayers, he was more complicated. he was a part of something bad, forty years ago. he obviously had grown up, changed, and is in no way advocating the actions he was implicit in years ago.
these names are dropped by conservatives almost relentlessly, as commentary on one thing or another.
nobody harped on bush’s DUIs after he claimed he’d converted to christianity and repented, but nobody asked what ayers had been doing for forty years.
when it came out that prescott bush was suspected of not only sympathizing with the nazis, but actually supplying them with weapons, this was not turned into a machine to get him out of office.
the video clip of bush laughing at woman on death row as governor of death-row-happy texas was forwarded among some groups, but was never used as a slam-campaign.
and yet, here we are years later still talking about bill ayers and rev. wright — the same reverend of a church that the “secret muslim” must not actually believe in — as if they are remotely relevant to the discourse of the day.
as a sidenote, for the uneducated on the matter, can you provide me with the connection between “black liberation army” and “marxist” in some way? because the only one i could see, besides the network that made it a supposed issue, is the fact that the fugitive in question fled to non-extradition-treaty (and coincidentally communist) cuba. is there a real connection?
Great points. But try telling that to the people who say this stuff. They’ll just yell over you.
Wait…a Muslin? You mean the President is a cool, comfortable, airy material that offers a wide variety of colors to make clothing that can be both relaxed AND professional? hehehe…sorry, Vikavid…I had to. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Ok, good, if not for that last line, I would have thought that you missed part of the joke.
Black Liberation Theology and the Black Liberation Army both draw inspiration directly from Marxism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army
Inspired By Marxism =/= Marxism
Kinda like the Army of God =/= Christians
They just changed it to fit their needs. It’s still Marxism. Read this and tell me you couldn’t pull these ideas directly from the Communist Manifesto.
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/rbg-street-scholars-think-tank/23010-what-black-liberation-army-bla.html
easter gets much of its imagery from central eurpoean pagan holidays. hence the bunny and eggs, both fertility symbols.
christmas was moved to december to be nearer saturnalia, so that christians could practice the holiday in the roman empire. hence the evergreen.
so these holidays have just changed those old practices to fit their needs, yes? doesn’t that sound awfully… sacriligeous to you?
hey, read the bible, particularly the new testament, after reading up on ancient egyptian fertility cults or even zoroastrianism. you could make the same claim — ” read this and tell me you couldn’t pull these ideas directly from” the prior material works just as well here, even if those connections are tenuous at best.
This isn’t a tenuous connection. There are writings by some of the leaders of the Black Liberation Theology movement in which they explicitly discuss what parts of Marxism can be of use to the Black Liberation Theology movement.
http://www.archive.org/stream/TheBlackChurchAndMarxismWhatDoTheyHaveToSayToEachOther/BCM_djvu.txt
I know it’s not so much on point any more, but while I disagree with this whole “Six Degrees Of Socialism” game being played with the president, you are likely to find connections with or undertones of Marxism in most American civil rights/racial pride/black liberation philosophies. The works of Karl Marx directly inspired and informed most of the writers so central in to the Harlem Renaissance which include a number of novelist, singers, writers and poets still central in African-American literary canon (and who I’m hoping my generation will turn into simply our canon instead of waiting until children are old enough that it’s “safe” to let them split off into specialized classes for books explicitly not written by well to do white men) and so they will continue to be heard down through generations. Even without these written works, there is a tradition of Marxist thought in our civil rights movements, and why should that surprise anyone? Is it shocking to know that a group of not-people but tools-of-labor would understand and identify with the commodity and alienation addressed in Marx? Or that those openly treated as second class citizens would find power in a theory that predicted an evolution of the human mind beyond the point of class divided?
I think the real problem is the demonetization that goes on whenever certain words are brought up. Unfortunately, both “communism” and “black” tend to bring up this reaction, a quick shut down of all due consideration for what is viewed simply as the other. But remember that when these men and women were first speaking out and shaping the ideologies that would become out civil rights movement they were second class citizens not just in a socially controlled way as is common know, but legally. Did you expect them to cheer on democracy when they weren’t allowed a vote? Or to keep praying to capitalism, the same force that figured out you can save a few bucks if you just didn’t feed a few slaves that week. Realistically, where did you expect such a movement to come from? And unless African-Americans have magically found a way to entirely disassociate their present state from all past histories (we certainly tried on their behalf) than, yes, you’re likely to find some hint of Marxism in there. It’s hard for me to find it the evil in that when it gave inspiration or voice or idea to so many powerful black writers who would demand for some basic human dignity be handed down the line.
Oooh, lookie here. They share connections with Marxism. Giving them all these big ideas that “no man should be able to own the other” and wanting to eliminate all the socially constructed, oppressive class divides that we worked so long to build up. Yeah, real scary stuff you have there.
Of course I’m sure you know about all the major philosophical, political, and culturally significant works that influenced the major thoughts that inform you various group identities and self beliefs, right?
I’m sorry. I should know better by now than to play a game of, “but if you guys just behaved and acted like we did than we would let you be as equal as us!” over the internet.
You say there is no connection, but there is a thread of commonality that is beginning to become apparent between all of these associations.
Bill Ayers- member of Weather Underground
With revolutionary positions characterized by Black separatist rhetoric (from wiki)
Reverend Wright- Black Liberation Theologist
Teaches James Hal Cone’s version of Black Liberation Thoelogy which borrows heavily from Karl Marx. See his writing: The Black church and Marxism: what do they have to say to each other
Common: Praises escaped convict Assata Shakur
Assata being a current member of the Black Liberation Army which draws it’s principals directly from the Communist Manifesto and also .
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/rbg-street-scholars-think-tank/23010-what-black-liberation-army-bla.html
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Have you ever thought about wearing a tinfoil hat on your head to block out the mind control rays?
Point out the logic jumps and lack of facts and I will begin crafting my tin foil hat.
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
And I would probably agree it was a guilt by association attack if he hadn’t been a member of Rev. Wright’s church for so long. The Ayers and Common thing would mean nothing to me IF he hadn’t been going to a Black Liberation church for close to 20 years. Don’t give me the “he didn’t really pay attention” excuse either. One of his books was based off of one of Rev. Wrights sermons.
What does being a member of Wright’s Church have to do with anything?
Also, “Black Liberation” isn’t an evil thing. Wanting to be free is not wrong.
First of all, I never said that the Black Liberation Movement was an evil thing. Being a member of a church for two decades that teaches Black Liberation Theology has a lot to do with it since it teaches a non-violent version of Marxism. I’m not saying that Obama is a Black Liberation revolutionary, but I do believe that he follows Black Liberation Theology and may be sympathetic to those who choose to follow the revolutionary path of Black Liberation.
I didn’t say that you said that “Black Liberation” was an evil thing. I was just throwing it out there, trying to show that simply being a member of a church that espouses “Black Liberation” ideologies does not necessarily MEAN anything.
Once again, what does Rev Wright have to do with this?
Since you apparently only read my first sentence I am just going to copy and paste the rest of my reply.
Being a member of a church for two decades that teaches Black Liberation Theology has a lot to do with it since it teaches a non-violent version of Marxism. I’m not saying that Obama is a Black Liberation revolutionary, but I do believe that he follows Black Liberation Theology and may be sympathetic to those who choose to follow the revolutionary path of Black Liberation.
I read the rest of the reply and I ask the same question.
Once again, what does Rev Wright have to do with this?
Going back to my original post, “it is decisions like this one that lead to people making a connection between Obama and Marxism.”
Rev. Wright taught black liberation theology, which is an amalgamation of Christianity and Marxism, at a church that Obama attended for two decades.
But, since the Association Fallacy is a fallacy, then these connections are *WRONG* unless you can provide evidence that Obama believes these things.
That’s the point!
Obama attended there for TWO DECADES. I wouldn’t attend a church that taught things I didn’t believe for that long. That’s why I say, in this case, it’s not association, it’s participation.
Black Liberation theology is about freedom for black people. But I guess this wrong.
It’s not about right or wrong. It’s about Marxism. Black Liberation Theology was created in response to the Black Power movement when black churches were losing their members to the growing numbers of the black muslim community and black nationalist. They created a theology that would incorporate some of the black power movement, along with a healthy dose of Marxism, to try to compete with the other black power movements of the time.
Once more, the Trinity United Church of Christ is not Marxism. It’s freedom for black people.
http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114
Find Marxism here, please.
Black Liberation Theology is similar to the modern theology of Liberation Theology often embraced by nations in the developing world.
For the ‘Non-Seminarian’ such as your delightfully noodly self, you might consider “Liberation Theology” as the Christian Response to the Civil Rights Movement… Like This:
Jesus, Paul and the Apostles stood with the Oppressed.
They also encouraged that Believers (aka Christians) should serve and empower the Oppressed.
Expression of our Faith should therefore become manifest in our Actions and Deeds. (see James, Pauline Epistles)
THEREFORE: If God identifies with ‘The Opresseed’ and we are to identify with them as well, than we should examine our surroundings for the Poor, the Foreigner, and the Socio-Economic-Slave. We should find them, live with them, and serve them. We should… advocate their Liberation.
Oddly enough, Roman Catholicism (The Priestly Tradition that descends from Peter) does not openly endorse Liberation Theology.
This is why I’m not Roman Catholic.
AND, this is why I moved from Rural White Middle-Class America to Urban Black Post-Industrial Poor America.
IOW – I take Liberation Theology very very seriously… and have no problem whatsoever with ‘Black Liberation Theology’.
NOTE: the only think unique about Black Lib Theo that I can tell, is the idea that if Jesus had been born today in the USA… he’d have been born to an unmarried homeless black girl in an urban slum.
And personally, I kind of like that idea.
Peace ya’ll!
TL;DR…
AND, I hate to wax eloquent and then run like this, but I’m heading off to see my son’s school program today and I have meetings all day tomorrow, so… Have Fun Ya’ll!
See, that’s the kind of Christian theology that I love and makes me happy. As a “God-hating” atheist.
This is the kind of Christian theology that I, as a “god-hating” atheist, love and want more of.
I actually see blatant racism there that goes directly against what the bible teaches. If you replaced black with white you would be appalled. There are some hints of Marxism there, but this is their PR page, it’s not going to get to the meat of the matter.
8. Disavowal of the pursuit of “middleclassness” is actually the opposite of how this particular congregation started. They wanted to be a strictly middle-class black church, but they only had about 100 active members at that time. Probably why they disavow it now. They also throw some class warfare in here which is classic Marxism.
“Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.”
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.
From Wiki: The church’s mission statement is based upon systematized Black liberation theology that started with the works of James Hal Cone.
One of those works being:
http://www.archive.org/stream/TheBlackChurchAndMarxismWhatDoTheyHaveToSayToEachOther/BCM_djvu.txt
Jesus did not stand with the oppressed. Don’t know where you got that from. He stood with God and God’s will only. Early Christians were not socialists. We are encouraged to care for and encourage the poor and oppressed (the oppressed Christian especially, like in Egypt right now) not through the strong arm of government. Jesus also said you will always have the poor with you and allowed Mary to poor the vial of expensive perfume on his feet instead of selling it to feed the poor like Judas suggested. He didn’t believe in taking from one to give to the other, he wasn’t about wealth envy like Rev. Wright speeches are all about.
Yes, I would be appalled if it were white instead of black. Why? BECAUSE WHITES ARE ALREADY FREE. Wanting blacks to be free, too, is not wrong.
As for your claims of Marxism, this is actually CAPITALISM that they’re pushing for. Unless you believe that being limited to the ceiling of “middleclassness” is capitalism and wanting the fruits of all developing skills to break through that ceiling to be Marxism, then let me tip my hat to you.
You just turned the right wing, libertarians, the Tea Party, and the Republicans into Marxists.
“Jesus did not stand with the oppressed. Don’t know where you got that from.”
Luke 4:18-19
Oh, and Jesus said repeatedly, he came for the Jew first, then for the gentile. Christians need to remember that, especially with what is going on in Israel right now. There seems to be an underlying hatred of Israel running through BLT.
Theologically, they are placing their blackness ahead of their Christianity and that is wrong.
Galations 3: 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Here is that passage:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[a]
He is talking about ALL of us! We are all prisoners of sin, we are all blind and oppressed. It’s not about one class of people. You need to read the whole bible and understand the story of salvation.
I know some blacks that would be very angry with you for thinking they are NOT free.
Whatever: No, they’re not.
Now, read Exodus 20:16
so you want to take even this away from people who have nothing, to make you feel better?
wow…
itsy: So, daring to say that the blacks are oppressed and that Jesus wants to free them, AS STATED IN THE BIBLE, is somehow un-Christian?
I’m completely flabbergasted. Following Jesus makes you un-Christian.
BLT is a political movement, nothing more. It uses Christianity to advance a political agenda. It has nothing to do with freeing black people. Black people are free already, at least as free as anyone is in this country. I know some blacks that make more money than I do, that live better than I do. If they are not free, how do you explain Oprah?
Everyone is oppressed to a certain degree. EVERYONE. We live in a fallen world and there is no way a political movement is going to fix that. Look at history.
If they aren’t placing it ahead of God then why is it the Black Value System? Why is it that “black” is mentioned more times than God? The freedom that Jesus offers is from sin and the law.
Jesus and God are a black value system because they’re blacks that believe in Jesus and God.
Also, it’s not a political movement except for trying to get freedom and equality for blacks. This is completely disturbing, isn’t it? Following Jesus and God is completely beyond the pale.
Please tell me how they do not have freedom and equality? We have a black president fcol. Also, why the hatred for Israel? That is decidedly unChristian and completely political. It is a political movement.
Also, I have blacks in my church. We invite black African preachers on a regular basis for Sunday sermons. (Which I enjoy) How are those blacks being oppressed? Or is it just some that are being oppressed? Isn’t this really a poor/rich thing? Marxism.
If you think that all blacks have equality just because there’s a black president, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Once again (I feel like I’m beating my head against a wall), this is CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Christians being Christian? Why, I never!
God transcends the idea of black and white.
Okay, got it. There’s no more racism or oppression of blacks in the United States.
Who are these blacks that don’t have equality? Where are they? What are they kept from doing? Oprah was very very poor before she became very very rich. Obama wasn’t from a rich family either. Where they not oppressed while others were? How does that work?
Understood. You have a handful of blacks that are successful so there’s no more racism or oppression of blacks in the United States.
I can’t believe you can type this with a straight face.
You combat racism in the church by teaching that we are all God’s children, that God is no respecter of persons. Not by drawing up racial lines and fighting for racial equality. That just creates more division. Remember this passage that you have quoted before?
I Corinthians 3: 1But I, brothers,a could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
Of course there is still racism, there always will be and it’s against all races not just blacks. There is racism against whites too, did you know that? But there is no real oppression and if it can be proven that an race is being held back there are laws to deal with it. BLT is doing nothing to help with that either, it’s the American justice system. And, what Whatever said above too.
Wow.
I knew I’d dropped a hot topic, but this is just plain… Wow.
Three Quick Points*
I. Wow. What a powder keg.
As we can all see from the frustration here, Catholics aren’t the only ones’ bothered by ‘Liberation Theology.’ These ideas make us feel uncomfortable because they remind us that we can’t just ‘Talk the Talk’… we also have to ‘Walk the Walk.’ I don’t think we all need to join Christian Communes or quit our jobs or sell all we have and give it to the poor… but if it’s in your means to do so… well… why not? And why do so many ‘X-ians’ look DOWN on people who DO choose this lifestyle?
II. @Whatever:
About Racism — I prefer discussing ‘Liberation Theology’ over ‘Black Liberation Theology’ because I am a globally conscious individual AND because Black Folks aren’t the only oppressed folks here in the USA. I respect the idea that Jesus wants us to care for the poor, the sick, the hungry and the destitute (MT 25 actually says “those in prison”!!), but I don’t think this specifically means… BLACK. I’ve met folks who think that only Black Folks can be saved, and that’s just silly. BUT – not all ‘Black Lib Theo’ folks are that quacky. Was Obama’s Chicago pastor that quacky? I doubt it. But I’ve never asked him so I can’t say for sure. BUT – what that says about MrO is… well… Not Much. So… Whatever.
III. Itsy Honey:
About “The Oppressed” — According to the Jesus Story in Matthew, he came first to the Jews… but if you read Luke & John, he very VERY clearly reaches out to ‘Goy’. IOW – you didn’t have to be Jewish to be In The Club. Paul pushes this issue even further. Paul was a Rabbi who became a Christian and left Israel to preach in Corinth and Rome! (hint: they weren’t jews.)
And what did he tell them? That this dude was born in a stable to a poor homeless woman and that he taught us to love each other, no matter how much money they have, or what gender they are, or where they were born, or what color they are, or which army they’re in, or what family they come from…
And that this message was so wild and crazy, powerful people killed him for teaching it. Dang usurper.
So, YES. Jesus came for everyone and wants us to love and care for everyone… (dare I use the word ‘Liberate’?)
— especially those who are forgotten by civic infrastructure, or the church, or the powerful, or… well… you get the idea. Oppressed.
They’ll know we are Christian by our love,
NOT by our Bible Translation.
Dig?
________
*Any Christian who has studied Homiletics understands the almighty importance of ‘having three points’. It’s not theological. It’s just that Americans don’t have attention spans for anything more than that. heh heh… funny.
BTW: TL;DR… again.
But, most of it kinda replies to the comments above, so… yeah.
Besides, since I’m offline tomorrow, I had to get two days of posts into one huge block of words.
Mrs. Q, I have a lot of respect for you and I know you have a lot of insight into Liberation Theology. I guess my biggest issue with Liberation Theology is that it seems, to me, to be missing the boat. Jesus was oppressed to the point of death, but it was through his death that we receive that level of freedom and equality that will never be attainable on earth. I don’t want to copy and paste all of Romans 6, but that is the message we need to be teaching. Doing good deeds, especially for those who are less fortunate or less able, is an important aspect of it, but it shouldn’t be the main focus. Jesus wasn’t as concerned with helping people out of bad socio-economic conditions as much as he was concerned with their spiritual condition (Matthew 6 19-34).
Holy crap I didn’t notice this thread until just now. I’m not going to read it all at this moment, but Whatever, I wanted to say that while I understand what you mean about helping people spiritually, which is an important precept, when people are starving, it is not only unethical to try to proselytize to them, it is also difficult for the teachings to actually sink in. People will agree superficially if the response is the physical aid that they need, but it won’t truly reach their hearts. Also, it was my perception that Jesus sacrificed his own life in answer to the suffering of others, so that they would be able to become free from sin, many sins are born in the despair of lacking physical necessities. It would be more Christian to help people at least to the point that they aren’t afraid of going hungry so that they could further have the ability to dedicate themselves to the teachings and philosophies of Christianity. I don’t particularly agree with the teachings of most churches, but when I see their efforts in this vein I appreciate the service they are doing and am moved to at least pay respects to Christ in response to the sight of such doings in his name. While Christ suffered, I believe he was only able to do so because of his divinity and it is up to us to ascend to his level so that we can bear the weight of the world (he WAS a great Master). Of course, I am not immersed in the Bible or Christian teachings, and feel that all of us can possess the same grace through the efforts of our minds and our souls.
Bolero, as I said earlier, I don’t want to take away from the importance of helping others. And I definitely don’t advocate using charity as a way to force people to listen to sermons. I am in 100% agreement with you on Jesus dying to free us from sin. That is the liberty we are offered. I don’t think that being in a bad economic position is an excuse for doing the wrong thing, and yes I speak from experience on that. Paul said:
Philippians 4: 10I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
So is slippery slope, but that doesn’t stop Liberals from using it all the time. And like guilt by association, sometimes it is true (just ask Martin Neimoller.)
See, the problem with some logical fallacies is that they are fallicies because they are not ALWAYS true, not because they are NEVER true.
So, until someone can provide evidence that Obama agrees with and believes what Ayers and Wright did (Common is right out because Common isn’t praising cop killing so, that is dismissed), associating Obama with them is completely fallacious. And, if you can provide evidence that Obama believes these things, then you don’t need to bring up Ayers and Wright.
When Ayers was in the Weather Underground, Obama was a child barely in school. Ayers left the Weather Underground long before he ever met Obama. So, I’m trying to figure out just what the controversy is.
whut whut? Ayers was in Weather Report??
I LOVE Weather Report!
Heavy Weather and Black Market are two of my all-time favs.
I wonder how hard he rocked out when he was a part of that band.
/silly
“So is slippery slope, but that doesn’t stop Liberals from using it all the time.”
yes, because the slippery slope logic is a liberal thing…
its a stupid argument whenever it’s used. but usually, when i’ve heard it, it’s used by paranoid republicans to justify DOMA or abolishing roe v wade, and i’ve even heard it used to justify why calling obama a socialist is not only ok it’s patriotic.
the real problem with logical fallacies, as any student of logic will tell you, is that they are false. they cannot be counted on. there may still be odds that they are true, but they are not true because of the logic used. at best, they are true when they are a guess, but this in no way supports the use of false logic as an appropriate method of thinking.
It may be a logical fallacy, but in the eyes of the law it can be used.
If you are pulled over on the street, and someone in your car has drugs on them, then both of you can be arrested, and your car impounded. That’s guilt by association. Same thing if you’re hanging out in someone’s house, it gets raided, and illegal activity or drugs are found, you can be arrested. Even if you have nothing to do with the activity.
But, since it isn’t illegal to hang out with people that some might find offensive…and the fact that merely ‘hanging out’ with ‘offensive’ people doesn’t necessarily MAKE you the same as them….and when ‘hanging out’ is stretched to cover most any meeting….
Well, grasping for straws comes to mind.
If you see a drug dealer on the corner, and there are a few people with him, do you assume that they are also involved with the drug trade?
But my point was simply the accounting of the logical fallacy. The point being that while it may be a fallacy, it is none the less a reality that people deal with.
You are really bringing up Prescott Bush? You know that was complete conspiracy theory BS right?
http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm
If you want to read something that is far more interesting and is actually true you could read up on JFK’s father and his views on Nazi Germany which was much more recent when JFK ran for office and still had no effect back then.
i am aware.
that’s why i mentioned that. and that’s why i used an example that parallels the ayers/wright issue.
correlation does not prove causation. similarity does not prove relation. to build entire armies of screaming rhetoric-swallowers upon such things is at best ignorance, at worst a horrible abuse of others.
There is no parallel. You are talking about a completely fabricated story. I am talking about things that actually happened, and in the case of Wright things Obama participated in if only passively. I am not talking about a false allegation made about Obama’s grandfather.
you are, by drawing loose connections and presenting them as if they are fact, on the same level of veracity as the prescott bush rumors.
my father has been a catholic for his entire life, and yet he believes in equal rights for the gay community, because “people are people, you treat them like you want them to treat you.” and to me, he possesses more of a deep understanding of christianity than any sensationalist televangelist with that simple statement.
but he’s belonged for over sixty years to a church that endorses a strong stance on certain moral issues.
we can make guesses based on flimsy parallels all we want. doesn’t mean there’s any truth there.
What have I presented that wasn’t fact? There are people on the other side of this discussion who have commented and lied about the facts, but I haven’t.
Yeah, well, the people who would use this to call Obama a Marxist already do. It’s not like rejecting this guy would make any real difference.
If you’re going to judge a president by those he chooses to keep company with, or kept company with in the past, then every single president in history is off the books. Heck, ol’ George Washington hung out with the most famous traitor in U.S. history before becoming president. Judge people by their own actions, not who they associate with. I’m a hardcore liberal, but i’ve got friends across the spectrum. Should my politics be judged by theirs? i certainly hope not.
You are known by the company you keep. If it were just one person, it wouldn’t be a big deal. It is starting to become a pattern and it should be a concern.
I hang out with conservatives and gun owners. Does that make me a conservative or a gun owner?
Are you saying that you are the one liberal in a group of conservative friends or that your group of mostly liberal friends includes a couple of token conservatives?
How about if it was 50/50?
I highly doubt that in Seattle, but I suppose it could give a balance. We aren’t really talking about the same thing. Being a gun owner or a conservative isn’t really the same as being a militant revolutionary who has committed acts of violence in furtherance of those political views. Now if half your friends were Aryan Brotherhood, then I would say you have a problem.
George Washington hung out with militant revolutionaries who committed acts of violence in furtherance of their political views.
…and he became a violent revolutionary himself. Thank you for proving my point.
Forgot my (!)
So if the greatest Americans were violent revolutionaries, what’s wrong with hanging out with violent revolutionaries, isn’t violent revolution part of the American way, no matter which side you’re on?
Not at all. Revolution for the sake of revolution is just anarchy. If there is not a good cause for the revolution, then why support it? That logic also brings up the question of whether or not Obama believes the Black Liberation revolution to be a worthy cause.
you honestly think than ANY of the people you mentioned were anarchists, or even just had no reason for their beliefs?
Way to miss the point. Sionnach said “isn’t violent revolution part of the American way, no matter which side you’re on?” That implies that being revolutionary is patriotic in and of itself. I say that it is anarchy if you aren’t fighting for a good cause.
I think all revolutionaries believe they are fighting for a good cause. The question I asked was whether or not Obama agreed that this was a good cause.
Obama was six years old when this happened!
i think a better question is whether or not bill ayers agrees with what he did what… forty years ago? what if obama agreed with what this man was doing ten years ago, after he had a radical change of heart?
Ayers has said that he didn’t do enough. Yes, I know that he wasn’t referring to the attacks. It does tell me that he agrees in principal with what he did.
I believe Bill Ayers actually has said he wishes he had done more. I don’t believe he is repentant in the least.
Done more….what?
The relation between gun owners & conservatives and militant revolutionaries who commit acts of violence to further their political agenda is debatable
Not being able to distinguish the two could explain why some on the left don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with hanging out with violent revolutionaries on the left.
Because while I was “hanging out with him”, we were working for an Anti-poverty action committee.
I see. So, Obama hangs out with militant revolutionaries. GOT IT.
I am a left-leaning moderate, but live in an area where most of my acquaintances are blatant and proud racists. They use the N word on a daily basis and don’t much like ‘the’ Mexicans either. They believe our N word President is a foreigner (and, really, believe anything bad that can possibly be said about him – no matter how outlandish – because they want to hate him)
I am also a retired Marine (which means a HUGE proportion of my friends, family and acquaintances are right leaning or conservative)
It doesn’t change my views, make me racist, or homophobic… it just makes my life ‘interesting’
You can’t really pick your family, or your Marines for that matter, but do you consider yourself to be friends with the people who are spewing hate?
Yes I do. Because I live in the world.
I don’t like their racism. I point that fact out very often. They know I am not a racist, that I refuse to use the N word and dislike their use of it, but they consider me a friend anyway, too.
Because nobody can be defined by any one single thing.
I abhor their racism, but I can also see their good qualities. I look at their racism as more of a disease, something they were exposed to for their entire life and now carry like a virus. I try to apply anti-viral reasoning at every opportunity.
And sometimes, it even works! I have a friend who now thinks gay people who have lived together for decades should at least be allowed to visit each other in the hospital if one is dying… a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
We are not one-dimensional. And we are not incapable of learning.
For instance, a person may HATE gay people – until they find out their daughter is gay – this may or may not affect their view on gay people.
A person may HATE all black people, until one rescues their drowning child… then, maybe, THAT black person is not to be hated and therefore, they can no longer hate ALL black people…
I’m rambling, but I hope you get what I’m trying to say.
It’s people like you that are going to sway the country toward at least compassion, if not change. That is exactly why I am friends with people whose myriad of views I disagree with-because we are humans and I can see their humanity and enjoy their good qualities while lovingly opposing the bad.
Agreed.
The only people I simply cannot tolerate are the ones who are so blinded by hatred that they will not even allow themselves to think because it might upset their psyche.
There ARE people who are unreachable because of hatred. Or just too stupid to think for themselves. Although, most often, they are both, which is sad, because they are so easily manipulated, and yet do so much damage to the world.
I do get it, and it’s a very good point.
They say that people who are racist are not likely to change, but people who say and think racist things are likely to stop.
They actually did studies that showed that to be true. People who thought of racism as something inherent or a fixed personality trait were not only less likely to speak out against it, but less likely to put themselves in “mixed race situations” out of fear they might reveal themselves to be racist.
On the other hand, people who consider racism specific moments, thoughts, or instances were more likely to speak up or address problems of racism. Even better, when those who considered racism to be a fixed trait where giving literature which spoke about racism as specific instances (“What you said was racist…” “That was a racist assumption”) they actually started to feel more comfortable in mixed race situations and more likely to speak up! I don’t know how useful you’ll find that, but coming from the south myself despite being…. we’ll just go with crazy liberal and proudly PC I try and remember how much our language use when addressing such issues can make a difference in the way people perceive and think about racism.
I figure that I have been brought up and raised in a culture that is constantly bombarding me with racial stereotypes, negative examples, generalizations, and grouping to the point where associations are made in the snap of a finger, before my conscious has had any time to react. But that’s okay, because I am conscious of at least some (if not most) of the ways I express and act on these thoughts, which is my measured impact in the world around me.
Like wise, the people around me (and you) have been raised in this very same culture that reproduces these racist images, places them in our conscious and spits them back out to be absorbed in the culture once more. It’s depressing when you think of it, that no one can truly be without any sign of racism because of the way our culture functions, but I like to concentrate on the fact that while my subconscious might not be under perfect control, I can act on it how I will and in this way we can shape the next generation, just as our parents helped to shape us. While I believe that racism is still a huge problem, to look back just thirty years is uplifting. We can change, as individuals and as a society.
Bill Ayers, BILL Ayers, BILL AYERS!!! For the love… I met the dude ONCE. FRICKIN ONCE. He gave me a whole 100 bucks for my campaign, and was nice enough to invite me, and a few other friends over for dinner. FOR A HUNDRED BUCKS, AND A REALLY DRY TURKEY, I am apparently lumped in with a guy whom attempted to bomb a police station WHEN I WAS SIX.
Oh, with regards to Reverend Wright, I forget, remind me, which am I: A Bad American Christian for attending his church, or a Kenyan Born Muslim for attending his church? Did any of you even bother to read my application for admission to the private school I attended in Kenya before going off on the whole birth certificate thing?
Holding a fundraising dinner for Obama is a little different than just having a few friends over for dinner. If it wasn’t a big deal then why misrepresent it?
That’s a strawman argument with me because I denounce the birther issue and I have never said he was a muslim, except maybe in jest.
It’s not a big deal, but you are misrepresenting it six ways to Sunday. What you were replying to was sarcastic.
Bill Ayers and Obama aren’t connected. At all.
How did I misrepresent it?
You’re suggesting that Obama agrees with Ayers simply because there was a fundraiser many years ago where Obama met Ayers ONCE.
There you go misrepresenting. Why do you and the other poster have such a hard time saying that Ayers threw a fundraiser for Obama. It wasn’t a dinner party that Obama happened to be at and it wasn’t a chance meeting at someone else’s fundraiser. Ayers threw a fundraiser dinner specifically for Obama. If it is not a big deal why keep misrepresenting it.
That doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Ayers on everything Ayers ever done and that Ayers holding a fundraiser for Obama raises anything Obama needs to be called to account for.
It’s NOT a big deal. YOU’RE the one making it a big deal out of it and misrepresenting that this says something about Obama.
I mentioned Ayers in passing in relation to the controversy over Common. The other guy was the one who wrote half a post about it misrepresenting what happened. Then you challenged me and misrepresented it again. Never once have I said that Obama agrees with Ayers on everything or the other way around.
So, why bring up Ayers at all?
Here is where I mentioned him in context to the issue with Common:
I’m not saying he shouldn’t invite him. I’m just saying that if these are the people you choose to rub shoulders with as President, you should be ready to answer questions about their politics as well as your own. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
My point was that a President is under much more scrutiny as to who they associate with than most people. Wright and Ayers were both examples of people Obama has associated with in the past and had to answer questions about because of the associations. He should have known that this would come up about Common and been ready to answer questions about it.
This is a flipping POETRY SLAM. Unbe-fricking-lievable. Reverend Wright was espousing the policies of Jesus Christ. Obama was SIX YEARS OLD when Ayers was in Weather Underground.
This is a disturbing series of events, ain’t it? A college professor holds a fundraiser, and worked with Obama in an anti-poverty group, and Obama has the unmitigated gall to be a Christian. That raises serious questions, don’t it?
“i’m not saying there’s anything wrong with these people, this theory, this church, or those other ideas. i do think there is, based on how i present and represent those topics, but it’s hard to defend that position — so i’m just implying it, then backtracking to a firmer point to make you look like you’re harping on the topic”
…is pretty much the summary of what is being said above.
Please don’t use quotation marks when you are misrepresenting what I said.
Is there a slight possibility that Common writes about issues that face a large section of our population, and ones that perhaps most of our media – originating from the perspective of the Christian white straight middle class male – might only address in “Very Special” episodes or other insultingly fake inclusive messages? That maybe the Obama’s felt that one of his songs, not all but maybe one or two or hell I don’t care if they thought half of a verse would make a city block take listen or a local news channel do that story they’ve been avoiding or even one single kid the strength to stand up to the dead weight pressure all society is tossing on them expecting them to be a lost and hopeless case?
Okay, clearly I’m bias but I mean, personally I have a lot more respect for someone who thinks, “Hey, here is a guy who seems to connect with a lot of the troubled youth of today. Why don’t we give him some kind of platform to reach a couple more and yeah it might cost us some “political points” but if we’re not using them to better our society than, hell, what are you even going to do with them? Walmart won’t even take them any more, for… ” You have a good point that the President is under a great deal of scrutiny and maybe he should have played it safe, limited his poets to the same older, straight, white men that are acceptable across the board. But… Yeah, I just find it hard to find that trying to bring some diversity to the poetry scene, get someone whose political message you feel is vital or even just one that might get some attention to the issues… Yeah, it’s hard for me to vote for play it safe over do something you think is right. Plus, well, I have a weak spot for poetry.
“Holding a fundraising dinner for Obama is a little different than just having a few friends over for dinner. If it wasn’t a big deal then why misrepresent it? ”
Having a fundraising dinner, -at his house-. Again, for a hundred bucks. It isn’t a big deal. Which is why I am NOT representing it – at all-. You brought it up, I give the logical explanation. But rather than see it as what it is, I apparently am one of his sympathizers. Heck, why not call me a co-conspirator? Heck, why not say I was the mastermind for the act he did.
When I was six.
Pretentious little lad, weren’t you?
One might use the word “precocious”.
What about “Holy Terror”?
See “Talliban” for description of “Holy terror”
Pretentious, Precocious, Holy Terror… whatever.
Actually – how about, Snarky little bastard who inherently had the ability to destroy others with a single wave of his hand, even at the youthful age of SIX… the AGE OF SATAN… and we shall name him DAMIAN
sorry. I couldn’t help myself from breaking into some end-times hysteria… It’s… almost like… I WAS A WOMAN POSSESSED!!
*coughs* um.. sorry about that.
I need an old priest and a young priest!
*flinging holy water onto Philly Mom*
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!
Thanks Sionnach! I feel Sooooo much better now.
[sad part of this is, i would bet MONEY that there are folks who think I might actually be demon possessed... because I write in character sometimes and am a woman who knows more theology than they do. Sick, ain't it?]
In reply to my merely mentioning his name you said “I met the dude ONCE. FRICKIN ONCE. He gave me a whole 100 bucks for my campaign, and was nice enough to invite me, and a few other friends over for dinner.”
You are the one who brought it up and you misrepresented the truth when you did. He met him more than once. As Ayers himself said in 2008, “We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.” Like I said, if it isn’t a big deal stop lying about it.
OR, better yet, and see if you can follow me on this one….
Since its not big deal, stop mentioning it. Tada.
And, no, I am not the one whom brought it up, take a moment to look at your initial post on this thread, Ayers was the last person you mentioned before the etc. You wanted to make a connection. I officially told you the value of that connection, dry turkey, and a hundred bucks. The SCOTUS is a group that serves together on a board, and they don’t exactly walk hand in hand now, do they? Those in the house and Senate are part of a foundation, and they are all happy to smile at each other, and call eachother family friends. Cripes, I know people that serve on the same neighborhood watch that couldn’t tell you the name’s of other member’s kids. BTW, if you really wanna split the hairs on this one, three years was our “working relationship”. For an antipoverty group. But, hey, we all need a boogeyman.
Boo!
Three years is a lot different than meeting one time isn’t it? I’m glad you are finally starting to admit to the truth and stop trying to minimize it.
Because you agree 100% with everyone you work with.
I never said that he agreed 100% with Ayers. You really are getting lazy now.
Then there’s ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BRING UP AYERS.
Get it?
Again, I mentioned him in passing in reference to something else. It was you and “Obama” who both jumped on it and made a big deal out of it.
Because YOU MENTIONED IT as if it MEANT SOMETHING. Did you forget what you wrote? Here it is:
“By the way, I’m not saying he shouldn’t invite him. I’m just saying that if these are the people you choose to rub shoulders with as President, you should be ready to answer questions about their politics as well as your own. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.”
WHAT QUESTIONS?!
You sort of mentioned it in passing reference the way that some one might mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the atom bomb, but… that atom bomb thing, it wasn’t a big deal, and was really just mentioned “in passing” as one of the many other ways it which it was destroyed.
As a politician, I met with LOTS of people. LOTS of people, its sort of my job. And LOTS of people donate to my campaign. LOTS of people. You might be surprised as to how many personal donations I get that are from people I might idealogocially disagree with. It just so happens than on this particular instance, one of those people happens to have notoriety. So, OF COURSE it must mean that because he gave me a C note, I owe my soul to him. Or something.
You seem to fail at the general understanding as to how this argument works. You say I keep poor company, and it rubs off on me. Then, when I try and explain the nature of my association with the individual -you brought up-, I seem to be making a big deal about it. If it wasn’t important, why did you bring it up in the first place?
::takes the Obama Mask off for a second:: BTW, I worked at various incorporated businesses for well over four years and can count on two fingers how many time I met my “boss”, if you reserve one finger for flicking him off. ::puts the mask back on::
You again. Don’t you have a country to run!?
WHAT QUESTIONS?? The questions he was asked about Ayers! I wasn’t trying to rehash all this with Ayers and Wright, I was referencing them as an example of this happening previously to Obama and him having to answer questions. Read below:
Sen. Barack Obama was asked about William “Bill” Ayers in the ABC News Democratic Debate Thursday night, prompting yet another controversy about Obama’s relationships with people.
Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relationship with Ayers, who was a member of the Weather Movement in the 1970s. The Weather Movement was responsible for the bombings of the White House, Capitol and other Washington buildings.
From 1999-2002, Obama served on The Woods Fund of Chicago with Ayers. In addition, Ayers gave $200 to Obama’s re-election fund in 2002.
“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” said Obama. “[He's a guy] who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.”
“The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George,” continued Obama.
Obama has received negative attention for his relationships in the past, mainly Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, who was the pastor of the church Obama frequented.
On Tuesday, Stephanopoulos was a guest on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes show. Host Sean Hannity suggested that Stephanopoulos bring up that Ayers and Obama knew each other during the debate. Stephanopoulos replied, ” Well, I’m taking notes now, Sean.”
Stephanopoulos denied that he received tips from the conservative political commentator.
The debate, which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the 21st matchup between the two Democratic contenders, Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
According to ABC News officials, it was the most watched debate of this campaign cycle, with 10.7 million viewers. The previous record, also held by ABC News, was 9.3 million viewers of the Jan. 5 debate between Democrats in New Hampshire.
“I wasn’t trying to rehash all this with Ayers and Wright, I was referencing them as an example of this happening previously to Obama and him having to answer questions.”
Yet, you’re doing it AGAIN. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy and you’re trying to SMEAR Obama because Common, who sung a song about someone that Common probably feels was unjustly convicted, was invited to a poetry reading, as if doing something like this raises any question about Obama HIMSELF and his capacity to run the country.
What’s next? Teletubbies at an event with Tinky Winky showing up (you know, Tinky Winky is gay, right? Purple, triangle, carries a purse?) and that raises questions about Obama’s position on the “gay agenda”.
That’s how looney tunes this looks to me. You must understand this. It’s completely bonkers.
If you have questions about Common, take it up with him. Sheesh.
The President is held to a higher standard. If he invites a poet who appears to believe in revolution to an event there is nothing wrong with questioning it.
Common believes in revolution?
Oh, have you not read the lyrics that are being discussed?
:headdesk:
Obama also had an interview with Fox News. This raises serious questions about Obama that he has to answer!
I could care less about Huckabee or Fox News. There are a couple of his lyrics in question. Not just a song for Assata. There is also a Letter to the Law.
OMG! You’re right! It proves that the POTUS approves of threatening the POTUS’ life.
He believes in assisted suicide!
Oh gawd! Death Panels!
How ’bout you don’t put words in my mouth. If you can’t stay on topic STFU.
First of all, I was responding to DSG.
Secondly, I AM on topic. The topic is guilt by association.
Mike Huckabee, a Fox Employee, invited a person who had threatened the life of the President of the United States and the U.S. Secretary of State (on film!) onto Fox News, thereby giving his explicit agreement that the President of the United States should is a piece of sh*t and should suck on a machine gun”, and since Mike Huckabee’s employer allowed this, they must also condone the suggestion. Right?
You know what else?
My Dad once met President Reagan…
…which makes me a bullet-proof, unimpeachable, spokesperson for the Republican party
I’m not a member of the Republican party, so have fun with that.
…and I apologize for being rude. I understood you to be mocking me.
Now that really is a logical fallacy. The fallacy of false alternatives, or bifurcation.
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
I was being completely sarcastic. It seems, to me, that the implication here is that if you ever have any doings with anyone that someone disagrees with, that means that you MUST agree with them.
I know that there are more than two options here. That’s the point.
Gosh, I wouldn’t be able to keep a straight face throughout this whole thing (it looked like at one point John Stewart was about to laugh)! Good job though Stewart!
Oh Jon (no ‘h’), how I do love you. I really, really, really love you. You remained calm, polite, self-depricating (“Do I have that right?), AND logical. Please, please, make more little Stewarts and raise them up properly!!! (((BIG HUGS TO YOU)))
DeprEcating but close enough…
He certainly does inspire hope for the future of humanity, unlike almost all of the other air-breathers on this planet
Did you, perhaps, mean “mouth-breathers”?
Wow, Ivan, haven’t sen you around in ages.
*seen (damn cheap work keyboard)
Ivan, Hi, good to see you.
O’Reilly is an idiot, but so is Jon Stewart. Turn the argument around and pretend that it was still Bush in office instead of Stewart’s man crush and his debating positions would be 180 degrees reversed. It all comes down, as they say, to whose ox is being gored.
Leaving aside the fact that Common dedicated a song to defending one convicted cop killer, and has also been on record supporting another (Mumia Abu Jamal), and that the poetry event to which he was invited coincided (rather distastefully in light of the former) with National Police Week. There was a time when using the words “n!gga”, “b!tch” and “ho” was considered distasteful enough to disqualify you as a featured guest at the white house.
Every 1st grade teacher in the world has told his/her students that “Everybody else is doing it!” isn’t a defense for bad behavior. That’s the crux of Stewart’s defense: “Bono did it too!”. That Stewart would take such a position and that O’Reilly was so ill informed and stupid as to have no counter argument for it just demonstrates the vacuity of both of them.
you misunderstand and simplify the argument. stewart’s is actually a lot more complicated than you suppose.
“everyone else is doing is” is never an excuse.
but somewhere, there are people who like to call others on their crap. you are accountable for what you stand behind, but you are also accountable for your record. stewart is actually not saying it’s okay because it’s been done before, but that if it’s been done before without outrage, then the outrage is different this time. if people have condoned “it” (and this can be whatever issue you want, from talking in class to killing small animals with a hacksaw) either by it not being an issue or by applauding someone after their stance is known, this teaches others that this is acceptable. in law, this is called a “precedent” and can be used to build an argument due to what this precedent says about our interpretation of our laws is. next time,
you don’t just throw out the decision and go anew, you’re accountable to be consistent with that past decision.
if you have an opinion that something is wrong, enough to make you frothing mad over that issue, then it better make you made every time it happens. if not, someone thinks you’re an idiot, and loses respect for you. because the issue isn’t what you’re pretending it is. if a teacher lets other people talk in class all year, and then the quiet kid does it and loses his recess because he has to write “i will not talk in class” one hundred times, this teacher better have a damn good reason why they are treating one kid different than all the others. if the kid was a minority (racial, ethnic, religious… you can imagine the kid as the only conservative or the only christian if it makes you understand better), there’d be hell to pay.
i think that this draws a line of “other”-ness, not necessarily racism. the idea of not letting bob dylan, bruce springsteen, or bono attend a white house visit due to their politics says something about the social acceptability of them, not of the issues they support. bono can claim that peltier is innocent in a song and isn’t being disrespectful, but common is being judged on different criteria — maybe it’s time to look at what those criteria are, and why he’s judged differently? and, of course, when the subjects on side a are all black (and one with a muslim-sounding name) and the others are mainstream and/or white (peltier can pass, hurricane may have been black but he was in-group as an athlete), people are bound to start asking about the attitudes that are represented in such harsh judgment in this direction.
for the record, i think it’s more about bashing the president due to their consistent agenda than it is about race. but it does look bad, and it does expose bias — something journalism is supposed to avoid, not push on the network level.
*golf clap* Well put, thank you.
If O’Reilly et al had been complaining about this rapper because he’s a crappy artist, that would’ve been different. But no; they’re criticizing him for associating with someone distasteful and believing in that person’s possible innocence. And Stewart is entirely right to call them out on their hypocrisy. They’re fine with Bono, they’re fine with Dylan visiting the White House. They’re not fine with this guy. Why? Why the selective outrage?
And there’s no way the argument would be turned around 180 to gore Stewart’s ox if this were during the Bush administration, because this isn’t about reflexively hating the administration. At least, it isn’t for Stewart. It does seem to be that way for O’Reilly, though.
I don’t recall an entire news network going guano psychotic over someone being invited to a “poetry slam” during the Bush Years.
Can someone refresh my memory?
They were criticized for canceling a poetry reading after one of the invited poets asked for people to send him their anti-war poetry to read at the event.
That wasn’t really what I asked.
And where did that ! come from?
I don’t recall Laura Bush having a poetry slam. So the question was pointless to begin with.
She was going to have one, but she canceled it because she feared that poets would bring anti-war poems to the event.
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/2/7/first_lady_laura_bush_cancels_poetry
No $hit. That’s what I just told you.
So, you think that MSNBC would have went bonkers over one of the invited poets?
Would MSNBC have even MENTIONED the poetry event?
I wasn’t commenting on that. I could care less what Fox News does. This is the first place I heard about this and I researched it to see what it was all about. To answer your question, the stir was over them canceling the poetry reading when they learned that one of the poets intended on reading anti-war poetry at the White House during a war. The poets have every right to do that, but the White House has no responsibility to host such an event.
You might care little about what Fox News does, but this is what this conversation is about: Fox News going bananas over the inclusion of Common (whom Fox News called a “positive” and “conscious” rapper) in a poetry event.
That’s what this subject is about. If you “could care less” what Fox News does, then why are you in the topic about it?
Flame on then.
Right, ’cause everybody was completely sane and grounded in their commentary during Bush’s presidency. If nobody went crazy over bad poetry, it was because they were already under sedation over pretty much everything else.
Well, that didn’t answer my question at all.
I don’t really understand why you’re bringing certain words into the argument…Any word used in correct context can be powerful and poetic. it’s all about the mood and point you’re trying to convey. Can curses be overused in rap music, but they’re looked down on because they have power. Careful use of that power is an important literary technique.
Stewart often makes fun of Obama, and even questioned him when he was on “The Daily Show”. If this was Bush he’d have done the same thing.
Stewart wasn’t saying that celebrating killers is good-he even allows that it’s fine to look down on Common for supporting them with no real evidence in his argument. What he’s saying is that if you do it to Common, then you have to do it EVERY TIME. We don’t look down on Bono or Bob Dylan, nor do we exclude them from things. We celebrate them as legends and give them a lot of money. So why are we looking down on Common simply for doing the same thing?
Last thing, using petty insults doesn’t earn you any extra debate points. it just makes you look angry and foolish. Please stop.
John, good job jacking him up to see what he’s made of
What is he made of, anyway? Hot air and a smooth voice?
I don’t think either won the debate… it’s a hard argument to defend, and I think Jon just picked the wrong one. O’Reilly’s debate is legitimate up to a point, but his closed-mindedness is what kills him here. Stewart did a good job with the Bono and Cash examples, though.
What’s legitimate about Bill O’Reilly’s point? Common isn’t defending cop killing. There’s no there there.
Jon won this argument in my mind, mostly because O’Reilly was arguing a completely separate and unrelated point the entire time. He started off talking about Common going to the White House as a poet and abruptly started bashing him for a lot of other stuff. He missed the point of his own debate IMHO.
What I like is that, prior to all this, Fox News was praising Common, stating that he was a “positive” and “conscious” rapper.
Oh, by the way, this:
http://bradnehring.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/59539_474293774202_46481584202_6826324_4911784_n.jpg?w=614&h=460
That doesn’t prove a thing! After all didn’t he also hang out with the floozy Katy Perry?
Why is he flipping everybody off?
Elmo is str8 gangsta.
Damn right! Elmo is str8 gangsta.
I was actually referring to the gesture that common is making (that’s not how you give a peace sign people!!!), but yeah Elmo is pretty gangsta.
Did you know Elmo is voiced by a big, burly black guy?
Well the point of a debate shouldn’t be to “win” anyway, it SHOULD be to come away with a better understanding of views other than your own.
Regardless of who might have won or lost the debate, at least this was a respectfully passionate and articulate argument between people with different opinions. If only there were more of kind of dialogue than the cross-ranting that that gets tagged as ‘debate’ these days.
I agree. I do think Jon won the debate simply because he called O’Reilly out on his hypocrisy, but the debate still has good points that went unanswered, mainly whether or not this event does indeed provide a level of invalidity to the American government.
However, for two of the biggest names in news media today (regardless of whether Jon wants to be lumped in with them, and regardless of what Bill does is considered “news”), going head to head, this was REMARKABLY civil. I know Jon can keep his mouth shut and just rapid-fire snarky comments, but Bill is always yapping his head off trying to out-shout the other guy. Bring both of them together and… civil discourse. From out of nowhere. Amazing. If nothing else, props to the both of them for that.
It’s a poetry slam. How does that invalidate the American government?! 8o
That was meant to be this emoticon:
Why is O’Reilly down on Common and not on Dylan, Bono, or Springsteen? Skin color.
Not sure if it’s that or they just can’t stand anything Obama does….even a simple “Poetry Slam” invitation they must turn into a gigantic impeachable scandal. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. And dangerous to our form of government.
I think it’s a mix of the two.
YEAH! No way it could possibly be politcal, it’s always about race.
And there’s no way it could ever be about race either!
but…but it is about race…The one the Republicans lost…So now we’ve got a Democrat in office…And they don’t LIKE that…So of course, everything he does is suspect and a wrong step for “Our country.” Why else would they feel the need to “Take America back?” He IS the wrong color. Just not balck or white; by wrong color in politics, you mean red or blue.
And when you mix red and blue you get purple–the color of the gays. No wonder Republicans don’t want to get along with Democrats….
Also the color of royalty. Specificaly, the roman emperor. Coincidence?
There you have it folks! Fix the broken gov’mint! VOTE G@Y 2012 
Hmmm…So if Democrats and Republicans get it on, we get Fabulous politicians. Who obviously, being purple, can get along with both sides of the aisle, and get laws passed.
George Takei for Prez!
Hikaru Sulu for President!!
Kaito Nakamura For President! He’s a businessman who knows how to succeed!
And here I was thinking that it was because Common and Obama are far more appetizing than Mike Huckabee or Ted Nugent (srsly if I see that clip ONE MORE TIME, I’m going to vomit).
You’ve been wrong all along o’rieley – explain that?
*O’Reilly
O’Rly?
*hoots like an owl on steroids*
She fought for his freedom? Did she fight in the civil war? She doesn’t look
that old.
LOLWUT
many people, white and black, dismiss the civil war as having little to do with slavery, and many of the parts that did having nothing to do with equal rights.
he’s talking about the movements a hundred years later (a full century of free but not equal, from slaves in the fields to wage slaves with the facade of rights that were limited or outright stripped by authorities, so what’s the difference?) — that actually affected change in society and began the real process of equal rights.
some people believe that it never would have happened with a violent movement, others believe that the threat of a few violent people charged the time with more potential to be heard.
I think MLK did more for civil rights than this unknown convicted cop killer. Maybe it was someone under the impression that violent people, like this woman, can “charge the time with potential to be heard” that killed MLK. These types of people should be thrown on the trash heap of history and forgotten, not sung about.
She was convicted of cop killing, but did she do it?
What evidence is there that she didn’t? If you go by her own testimony then you would have to release 90% of the criminals in prison because they all claim to be innocent.
Wait a minute. Are you asking me to prove someone’s innocence? Isn’t that completely backwards?
Only before they are CONVICTED!
No one has ever been wrongly convicted, I guess.
No one has ever been correctly convicted, I guess.
So, someone that is being invited to a poetry event can never feel that someone was wrongly convicted, I guess. And they most assuredly can never MENTION it. I mean, it’s not like we have freedom of speech in this country.
They have every right to express that and you know it. For the same reason we have the right to express skepticism about it.
NOT THE POINT. The point is, once they have been convicted the burden is on them to prove that they were wrongly convicted.
Once more, for emphasis, since you seem to be purposefully dense to the point of IGNORING what I’m saying:
* Common has the right to believe what he wants to believe.
* Common probably believes that this woman was unjustly and wrongly convicted.
* Common has the right to make a song about it.
* Common also can attend a poetry event being put on by Michelle Obama.
I’m sure you agree with all these things.
What, then, is the problem? Have you seen the insanity at Fox News?
And we have the right to question the judgement of Common and the president for inviting him to the white house.
So, only people that toe Obama’s line and vision should be invited.
And there’d be NO problem with that at all, right?
The question isn’t about towing the line, but extreme views. How would the media have felt if someone who wrote a song titled a song for Scott Roeder, which praised his anti-abortion efforts and claimed he was framed for Dr. Tiller’s murder because of his anti-abortion activism and then the Bushes invited the song writer to read poetry at the White House?
What?
Role Reversal:
Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist, has been convicted of killing Dr. Tiller, an abortion doctor.
Scenario:
Ted Nugent writes a song that praises Scott Roeder for his anti-abortion efforts and claims that he was framed for shooting Dr. Tiller.
Laura Bush then invites Ted Nugent to come to the White House to read poetry.
Problem?
Yes. Problem.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.
definitely a problem. who cares enough about ted nugent anymore to give him the stage? seriously.
Have you ever heard Peter, Bjorn and John? I know it’s way off topic, but that’s what I think of every time I see your name. They have some really good music.
Do you know for sure he thinks the woman was unjustly convicted? I don’t know myself, has he stated that anywhere? Or does he commend her for shooting a cop? That would be good to know.
You don’t even know what Common said, but you feel that you can condemn Common?
I haven’t read everything he ever said. I am asking you, do you know of an instance in which he has said he believe this woman to be completely innocent of shooting a cop, or does he think it’s a good thing to shoot a cop in certain circumstances? Because I don’t believe it’s clear.
I wasn’t aware that you didn’t even know the very foundation of this discussion. Do you always go into a discussion without knowledge of what you’re talking about?
Anyway, here:
From “A Song for Assata”:
Assata had been convicted of a murder she couldna done
Medical evidence shown she couldna shot the gun
Common doesn’t praise or commend her for “shooting a cop”. In fact, Common believes (if his lyrics reflect his beliefs) that she didn’t do it.
Common doesn’t praise cop killers. Common doesn’t commend cop killers. This is the Fox News froth that you seem to be buying into.
Well it changes things a bit, at least HE doesn’t believe she killed the cop. But, she was convicted and so there must be a lot of evidence that she did it.
“Common doesn’t praise cop killers.” – He kinda does, because she was convicted in a court of law. Whether he believes it or not.
So, if you’re convicted for killing a cop, that automatically makes you a cop-killer, even if you didn’t do it?
It’s our legal system, it’s the way it works. You can appeal.
I see. So, you’re a cop-killer even though you’ve never killed a cop.
Got it.
Only if you have been convicted in a court of law.
Okiedokie. So, you’ve killed a cop even though you didn’t. A court of law is able to bend reality to its will.
It’s the prosecution’s job to convince the jury that the defendant did the crime. All the defense has to do is cast enough doubt that the jury questions the prosecution’s claims.
If the defense didn’t do a good enough job….
Regardless, if someone didn’t kill a cop, reality just doesn’t transmorgrify because a court says you did. And that doesn’t make you a “cop killer”.
If Common believes that she didn’t kill a cop, then he isn’t praising a cop killer.
He might be praising a cop killer, he doesn’t know for sure either, he just believes she was framed. Odds are she did it.
Let me spell it out for you:
If he thinks she didn’t do it, then he isn’t praising a cop killer.
I can’t make it any clearer.
And let me get rid of that !
He doesn’t know for sure. So, in reality he might be.
Once more, let me spell it out for you, in as small words as I can possibly get:
If Common knew she was a cop killer, he would not be praising her.
Get it?
If she DID kill the cop – and Common is praising her – then in reality – NOT in his mind – which isn’t reality – he is praising a cop killer.
itsy, ultimately he isn’t even PRAISING her like you keep claiming he is, he is telling her story. He might have respect for her spirit throughout her trials (which if they have been relayed factually make her conviction highly suspicious, because it sounds like she was put in a prison with men, and left there to rot as they came up with charges…after her stay in the hospital because she was shot by the police when she had her hands over her head in surrender). He even says in the song that her story deserved to be told because of what she had endured, he was amazed at what the cost of the freedom of other’s cost one woman (I’m not sure what Assata did in her life and I’m not moved to look it up). It sounds like the song has been largely misconstrued, even the violence related in the song is against the woman being “praised” not against the cops themselves, he is accusing them of wrongdoing though, and saying the way they handled her was a miscarriage of justice.
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/A-Song-for-Assata-lyrics-Common/7F5D6DC0A9BFCE044825691F000AD221
I haven’t been watching Fox News. I agree with all the points, but I question the wisdom of the last point. The Administration has made it a point to disavow some of the content of Commons lyrics and so it seems it was right to question them.
But then, that’s the very subject, isn’t it? Look up….way up, because this thread has gotten huge (or, as Trump would say, HYOOOOOOOOOOOGE!). Jon Stewart versus Bill O’Reilly….on Fox News…discussing what Fox News does.
It has become a Fox News issue, but it originated as a civil debate between one conservative and one liberal that happened to occur on Fox News. If they had the same discussion on Comedy Central would you be slamming Comedy Central right now?
Wait, what?
The video under discussion is Jon Stewart debating Bill O’Reilly.
Bill O’Reilly invited Jon Stewart on his program after Jon Stewart highlighted the froth at Fox News over the invitation of Common.
You know what? I think I’ll wait until you’re educated on the subject before continuing.
That sounds like good civil discourse to me.
How many stories has Fox News run on this?
I have nothing terribly much to say, as many of my views have already been presented quite well. However I do want to comment how much I’ve enjoyed reading this discourse. (granted far too late into the evening/morning) I have found this debate rather refreshing as it has been the first one in a long time that I have read where there have been no obvious trolls or billy goats gruffs- but rather debates from opposing points of view and I find it quite refreshing. Thank you. (Please don’t prove me wrong by trolling my spelling and or grammar; I’m bleary eyed and tired and we all make mistakes-particularly me.)
*bleary-eyed
Wow, such a meta conversation. Back to the basics, fox news has a habit of finding the most absurd detail and blowing it out of proportion. Oh NOES, Obama didn’t wear a flag pin on his jacket during a few speeches. Oh my, is the fist bump a sign of something nefarious? People who make 250K per year are “barely middle class” when it comes to tax breaks, but union people who make 75K in a union per year are “fat cats” living a good life. Fox news paints a narrative that the whole channels follows.. more so than any other network.
tl;dr