HAMBoneProbably the best CommanderJoin Date: 2003-04-02Member: 15139Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited August 2004
The reason that I thought it was "sad" is because I watched that speech and I re-read the speech and there didnt seem to me to be anything spectacular about it, just another politician, and yet before, during, and after the speech, the media outlets are all breaking in to tell us how hes the bright new star of the democratic party and hes so great. Then I come on the internet and I see all these posts everywhere worshiping some filthy dime a dozen politician and I can only assume that part of the reason that otherwise intelligent, critical thinking people would be suckered in by another cheap salesman is that every media outlet has been telling them how hes "the new star" and how special he is(the "propaganda")
So, my point was that most of us watched his speech at the DNC which means we all had the media in our face telling us how great he is, and if you didnt watch the speech then you probably read a review online or in a newspaper, telling you how great he is, with nothing to back it up. The little I did hear/read about him other than how great he is was to say that his father abandoned him pre-birth and he was raised by his rich white mother in a really affluent area, yet we can see from that speech that he likes to portray himself as a poor black man from humble beginnings.
I am sorry about those other posts, I guess I was trolling a bit, but to be fair I really never said anything that was intended to be mean towards anyone and you have been the one lobbing insults at me and deciding what I think.
Well, my apologies. I may have been a bit defensive and harsh, you may have been trolling a bit. No harm done.
However, while it's true that I was 'projecting', the fact that you cast what could be read as an offhand, dismissive remark-- without any further support or evidence-- did make the situation pretty ripe for a misunderstanding (especially in the occasionally tense discussion forum).
Had you posted your most recent thoughts way back when, I certainly wouldn't have been taken issue with it. While I may not agree with what you've said, it's certainly a relevant opinion. Illuminating your own point of view makes all the difference.
I've watched his speech and listened to it a few times (available free at through the iTunes store) and I don't think he pushes a humble upbringing so much as an unlikely one. I believe he makes mention of the fact that they weren't wealthy, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were poor. I'll have to listen and do some research on that one.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBONE+Aug 11 2004, 07:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBONE @ Aug 11 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reason that I thought it was "sad" is because I watched that speech and I re-read the speech and there didnt seem to me to be anything spectacular about it, just another politician, and yet before, during, and after the speech, the media outlets are all breaking in to tell us how hes the bright new star of the democratic party and hes so great. Then I come on the internet and I see all these posts everywhere worshiping some filthy dime a dozen politician and I can only assume that part of the reason that otherwise intelligent, critical thinking people would be suckered in by another cheap salesman is that every media outlet has been telling them how hes "the new star" and how special he is(the "propaganda") <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really think most of the enthusiasm for it was spontaneous. The speech was moving for me and I hadn't heard any commentary on it whatsoever. Your mileage may vary of course.
<!--QuoteBegin-lagger+Aug 11 2004, 02:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lagger @ Aug 11 2004, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The speech was very moving, although the actually substance seemed to be lacking. If he ran for presidency I wouldnt vote for him until he defined what his stances actually were. Although he did a very good job supporting Kerry imo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i think he would probably define his position when he started campaigning.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ulatoh+Aug 13 2004, 01:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ulatoh @ Aug 13 2004, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i think he would probably define his position when he started campaigning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unlike the uncast zombie from Doom3 that they have running for them now.
While I don't agree with some of the pessimism about Obama, I do believe that while he shows a lot of promise, he really needs to cut his teeth in the Senate before we get <i>too</i> excited about him.
Though, Good Lord was the GOP's decision to run Alan Keyes against him . . . uh . . . desperate and ill-conceived, at best.
To essentially rephrase/build upon the hilarious and astute points made on the Daily Show:
1) At least three previous hopefuls fell by the wayside here, so he's <i>obviously</i> not their first choice (remember the dishonest talking point raising a stink about Edwards being Kerry's <i>second</i> choice?)
2) And the obvious: Uh, We'll see your black guy, and raise you . . . a black guy from another state.
3) Alan Keyes on Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in New York: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alan Keyes now: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I think I have addressed the issue of the very deep differences between what I am doing and Hillary Clinton. She used the state of New York as a platform for her own personal ambition. I had no thought of coming to Illinois to run until the people here in the state party decided there was a need. Just as people faced with a flood, or people in the case of 9/11, would call on folks, firefighters and others to help them deal with the crisis that they were faced with. The people in Illinois have called on me to help deal with what they regard as a crisis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She was a power hungry opportunist; he's apparently a <b>superhero</b>. Up, up, and <i>away</i>!
Seeing as how Obama is destroying him in the polls (by roughly a 40 point margin), he <i>may</i> want to tone down the 'populist savior' bit to a dull roar . . .
Of course, with strong, uh . . . carefully worded . . . tip-toeing . . . non-endorsements like this, from former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson, Keyes is certainly a force to be reckoned with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd be inclined to vote Republican. His views are very conservative. Some of his positions would make me uncomfortable as a voter. I'm willing to give him a chance to tell the people of Illinois what his views are. I have not endorsed him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
So, my point was that most of us watched his speech at the DNC which means we all had the media in our face telling us how great he is, and if you didnt watch the speech then you probably read a review online or in a newspaper, telling you how great he is, with nothing to back it up. The little I did hear/read about him other than how great he is was to say that his father abandoned him pre-birth and he was raised by his rich white mother in a really affluent area, yet we can see from that speech that he likes to portray himself as a poor black man from humble beginnings.
I am sorry about those other posts, I guess I was trolling a bit, but to be fair I really never said anything that was intended to be mean towards anyone and you have been the one lobbing insults at me and deciding what I think.
However, while it's true that I was 'projecting', the fact that you cast what could be read as an offhand, dismissive remark-- without any further support or evidence-- did make the situation pretty ripe for a misunderstanding (especially in the occasionally tense discussion forum).
Had you posted your most recent thoughts way back when, I certainly wouldn't have been taken issue with it. While I may not agree with what you've said, it's certainly a relevant opinion. Illuminating your own point of view makes all the difference.
I've watched his speech and listened to it a few times (available free at through the iTunes store) and I don't think he pushes a humble upbringing so much as an unlikely one. I believe he makes mention of the fact that they weren't wealthy, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were poor. I'll have to listen and do some research on that one.
I really think most of the enthusiasm for it was spontaneous. The speech was moving for me and I hadn't heard any commentary on it whatsoever. Your mileage may vary of course.
i think he would probably define his position when he started campaigning.
Unlike the uncast zombie from Doom3 that they have running for them now.
You get a guy who is fairly laidback and flexible, and he's an indecisive zombie.
You get a Texan who barely even flew a desk in the ntl' guard and needs a Speak And Spell while he reads his speeches and he becomes president.
Though, Good Lord was the GOP's decision to run Alan Keyes against him . . . uh . . . desperate and ill-conceived, at best.
To essentially rephrase/build upon the hilarious and astute points made on the Daily Show:
1) At least three previous hopefuls fell by the wayside here, so he's <i>obviously</i> not their first choice (remember the dishonest talking point raising a stink about Edwards being Kerry's <i>second</i> choice?)
2) And the obvious: Uh, We'll see your black guy, and raise you . . . a black guy from another state.
3) Alan Keyes on Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in New York:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alan Keyes now:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I think I have addressed the issue of the very deep differences between what I am doing and Hillary Clinton. She used the state of New York as a platform for her own personal ambition. I had no thought of coming to Illinois to run until the people here in the state party decided there was a need. Just as people faced with a flood, or people in the case of 9/11, would call on folks, firefighters and others to help them deal with the crisis that they were faced with. The people in Illinois have called on me to help deal with what they regard as a crisis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She was a power hungry opportunist; he's apparently a <b>superhero</b>. Up, up, and <i>away</i>!
Seeing as how Obama is destroying him in the polls (by roughly a 40 point margin), he <i>may</i> want to tone down the 'populist savior' bit to a dull roar . . .
Of course, with strong, uh . . . carefully worded . . . tip-toeing . . . non-endorsements like this, from former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson, Keyes is certainly a force to be reckoned with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd be inclined to vote Republican. His views are very conservative. Some of his positions would make me uncomfortable as a voter. I'm willing to give him a chance to tell the people of Illinois what his views are. I have not endorsed him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->