lostfan

BTW: again, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with what Wright said, only that people need to stop distorting the context

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) I know better then that. But, the fact is, the undertones are there always. It's his style and his belief that african americans are being held down by "rich white folks". Does he say it every week? Probably not. Does he believe it? Absolutely. Does Obama? Probably, but of course he can't come right out and say that. Duh. Yeah, so? You know something, that might not be completely true but it's based in truth, at least historically, and that's the way many blacks feel. People don't really like to bring it up in mixed company, and I know that white people don't want to hear it because they don't want people to say they're racist when they feel they're not, they think it's unfair which is understandable. But pretending that this country hasn't had devastating racial problems that linger to this day (albeit to a significantly lesser degree, after much progress), or hiding your head in the sand and condemning people who bring up reality is pretty ignorant if you ask me. And as I read comments across the Internet, that's exactly what's happening.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 08:53 AM) I would really like to know how often sermons like that were given. Are the handful of clips out there the only times in 20 years? Was it a weekly or monthly thing? No way of knowing honestly, but from watching news networks you'd think it was the foundation of everything Wright preached for his entire career. I will say this though, when pastors of black churches start talking about race relations, it does get pretty fiery. Usually not the point of outright racism, but still toeing the line of political correctness (at least what you'd be used to seeing on TV)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) Do you hang around people like this for (again) 20 years if you don't believe anything they say? Frankly, yes. And what of it? I have friends that do drugs, does it mean I sanction the use of drugs? Cmon now. Some of my friends and/or family are just plain morons. Does that affect who I am? No it doesn't. Not at all. Not in the slightest. I could care less what someone thinks about my friends, if they want to judge me based off the people I know and not what I believe... especially when what they know me to believe directly conflicts with what my friends believe, but you give more weight to the latter... then that's not someone I want to know. Then again, I'm not a politician trying to pander to fickle, narrow-minded masses either... This entire response is based off the fallacious premise that Jeremiah Wright ONLY preaches what you saw in those videos btw. Anything more than that is deliberately polarzing the issue and trying to turn it black and white when it really isn't (pun not intended). What I'm saying here is... if someone already doesn't like Obama and this is just fuel to their fire that's one thing but if this is a revelation, or an epiphany that causes somebody to do a complete 180 on Obama that's kind of pathetic IMO. Is it a strike against Obama? Probably. Does it carry as much weight as everybody is saying it is, enough to completely override anything Obama has ever said or done? No.

You know, all you guys who all of a sudden are insinuating that Obama is some kind of closet racist where he has been going to this church for the past 20 years to be indoctrinated with hatred and contempt for white people and America based off a handful of video clips, I kind of feel sorry for how easily you're manipulated by the media. I just don't see how you could just jump to such wild and ridiculous conclusions and pretend like that's all there is to know, and nothing else.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:51 PM) Anyways one question I wonder, maybe some of you history buffs and answer this but right after the Civil War ended, and into the 20th Century, the South were primarily Democrat and African-Americans were primarily Republican, at least in Iowa. Now it's the complete reversal. Anyone have a reason for that? Well, that is kind of complicated to explain but I'll try and summarize it, please forgive me if I miss a couple of details though. The Republicans were basically all of the abolitionists and pro-war politicians and the southern white Democrats were the pro-slavery/pro-seccession people and the ones that passed all the Jim Crow laws to deliberately disenfranchise black voters during the Reconstruction because they were a new and powerful voting bloc that would threaten their status quo. Around this whole time (probably Kansas-Nebraska act but I forget) the Democratic party split, and all of the pro-war Democrats left the party for the Republicans. So in a nutshell the Democratic party is basically responsible for f***ing blacks and setting them back 100 years and they enabled white supremacist groups to come about because they ran out the federal troops the gov't needed to support the rights of blacks. But... ...as I'm sure you know, this started to end around the civil rights era in the '60s when Democratic leaders like Truman and Kennedy started supporting civil rights which obviously upset the racists (yeah, not a better word that is less inflammatory since it's true) in the South and left them to temporarily split from the party, and at the same time drawing blacks into it. So Richard Nixon saw this happening and used it to his advantage, he appealed to the white conservatives (and, um, racists) in the South and they started voting Republican, and eventually got settled back into their old ways without having to worry about their party supporting civil rights. And it worked pretty damn effectively, so ever since then, the South has usually been red made up of entirely red states. Oh and to address the thread's general topic, it is still racially polarized as far as that goes, it might not be completely obvious like it was several decades ago but it's still a reality. Pretending like it's not is kind of silly, and how many racists are in the North is basically irrelevant.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) I think that we, as a nation, have made great strides in curbing racism. I also feel that there is much work left to be done. Is this country collectively less racist than it was 20 years ago? Yes.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 09:56 PM) You can't cherry-pick on the racism defense. Don Imus has received widespread condemnation for very occasional statements that showed racial insensitivity. Trent Lott was condemned for one statement praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign. So if 10% of what he says is bad, it is bad. mmkay but you know what, these are not things Obama said, at any point, ever... it's guilt by association. Furthermore Wright grew up during the Civil Rights era and so on while Obama was raised by a single white mother overseas. I kind of get tired of explaining the black perspective and why some of them speak with so much anger and distrust as if they're just supposed to "get over" the past and the subsequent situation the race is in today. It's like talking to a wall most of the time, especially on the internet, so I don't even attempt to do it anymore. (This should not be read as lostfan's endorsement of anything Wright said in these clips btw)

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 05:43 PM) That's one hell of a cop-out, imo. lol, WTF do you expect/want him to say?

It's nice to see a baseball article on ESPN from a writer who isn't a complete East Coast homer.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 08:09 PM) Ozzie does love speed, and while it (possibly) seems as though he's recognizing that OBP is more important at the top of the order than a track star, he will want a guy that can steal bases somewhere on his team. Currently, I don't think anybody has proven they can steal at a proficient clip other than Owens, so it would be nice to have a speedster that can come into the game in the 8th inning or so and steal a base. Of course, he'll get thrown out now and then too, which would really suck, but s*** happens. Anderson's got pretty decent speed, as does Fields FWIW. But he doesn't have the hang of getting good jumps yet so it doesn't translate into SBs. Come to think of it Owens doesn't always get the best of jumps either but he's so damn fast it really doesn't matter.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) I got nothing against fathom, but he said seemed to fix his swing. I didn't see it, but all I'll say is bad habbits have a way of returning. Hitting is repetition and muscle memory... Anderson basically had to tear down what he knew and start from scratch at some point during the '06 season and to do that he needed consistent ABs (just as he does now). It was something he could get away with in the minors against less talented pitching but it was exposed in spades against MLB pitching. This is why he seemed to simplify his plate approach after the ASB and hit a lot more liners instead of trying to swing a power bat. I would go out on a limb and say that if it looks like he has in fact fixed his mechanical issues and keeps doing what he's doing, he's probably not going to regress.

QUOTE(JFields27 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 06:07 PM) I pick Josh Fields. Knightni didnt even mention him in his post and then not even in the poll. There may be a lot of Crede Fans but everyone talks about him and maybe Fields gets mentioned with him. You dont see much on Fields though I think you're nuts... everyone is ecstatic about having a young power hitter. Of course they talk about him.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 06:42 AM) I stood by him but got sick of having the same argument over and over. Me too. Anywhere on the internet where there's Sox discussion, there is/was/always will be a Brian Anderson argument.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) terrorist scumbags (of ALL ideologies, faiths and political persuasions) No need to qualify that statement. Overwhelming majority of today's terrorists = radical Muslims. Nothing politically incorrect about pointing that out.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 02:02 AM) Enough said. lol, I knew that was coming. For real though it's what Chicago politics is all about, for every apparently likable one that's produced like Barack Obama you have several turds like Rod Blagojevich. It's been that way since before even my dad can remember.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 10:27 PM) 1. Other cities DO have these problems. Most of them do, in fact. 2. People have historically, especially in the last 2 or 3 decades, not made an issue of it because the city has done so well. Its gone through a virtual renaissance. 3. Also during that period, until recently, the city appeared to run much better than others. The streets are cleaner, potholes are fixed faster, things work better. Ask people who lived in Chicago but also in other cities (myself included). Its only been the last few years where people have noticed that the quality has dropped a lot, but the high taxes continue. That's when there is trouble. I didn't mean to imply that other cities don't have these kinds of problems although reading my post I could see how you'd think that's what I was saying. But like you said nobody has made an issue of it because for the most part Chicago was doing all right at least on the surface (when downstate politicians don't interfere anyway e.g. CTA "crisis" that was a self-inflicted wound from the state government). That much I can agree with. For the record I know my profile says I live in Maryland but I was born and raised a Southsider.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 8, 2008 -> 11:18 AM) Because it's been run by Democrats for 50 years. No brainer. It's really got more to do with corruption and inefficiency than it does with them being Democrats.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 11:23 PM) Almost time to change the name of this topic to say "Brian Anderson was hitting". He sees runners on base and retreats into a slump. Good god, the only other place you see ridiculously polarized arguments like this is with Rex Grossman.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) Probably less than what they are paying now for the bloated bureaucracy of Cook County, especially if they join another existing county. I'm surprised nobody is talking about this at length in this thread yet. Chicago probably has one of the most inefficient local governments I've seen anywhere in the country. There's so much nepotism and good-old-boy mess going on that it stifles the government. Howcome no other big city seems to have these budget problems all the time? If all that was streamlined, eliminated, and cleaned up (corruption) the gov't could probably still provide all those services and lower taxes a good amount. But nobody ever takes them to task so it just gets perpetually worse.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 08:22 PM) So no wall to wall reports on the Obama advisor calling Hillary a monster today? I am shocked! Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't right now.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 08:23 PM) Profit is a powerful motivator. Indeed it is edit: assuming you're talking about corruption

QUOTE(Jim Spencer @ Mar 4, 2008 -> 06:26 PM) I'd like to see Juan go to the Cubs Subtraction by addition, that'd be hilarious.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 06:51 PM) Accountability to individuals is one thing, but if the whole thing is beaurocratic to begin with... How many things involving a lot of money don't also involve bureaucracy?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 06:41 PM) no one said it's the only one, just that the gov is usually the worst. corruption, no competition, cost raising bureaucracy, don't care about customer service cause they are the only show in town, ect. Not disputing all of the above but Option B is not always automatically better. The corruption factor is the same when it comes to large amounts of $$$$. Power is susceptible to corruption and money=power Don't think I'm arguing in favor of the gov't running more things because I'm not.