Michell Obama's thesis for her doctorate describes America as a troubled country on the verge of failure. She sees a black and white America and claims blacks are not equal but are superior to the white race.This seemingly harmless woman spews hate toward America. Her husband's Muslim upbringing also postulates this position.
Michelle Obama
- Thread starter Nester6
- Start date
Sources. Links. Provide reference for your argument, man.
You know people wont agree with you unless you post accurate, unbiased information.. so that you can gather support for your accurate, biased opinions.
With that said, tho.. I support Obama. By all means attack him.
You know people wont agree with you unless you post accurate, unbiased information.. so that you can gather support for your accurate, biased opinions.
With that said, tho.. I support Obama. By all means attack him.
Sources. Links. Provide reference for your argument, man.
You know people wont agree with you unless you post accurate, unbiased information.. so that you can gather support for your accurate, biased opinions.
With that said, tho.. I support Obama. By all means attack him.
Well said. Please read www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8624/.html
Just more reasons to question Obama's thought molding, not to mention attending a church and adoring a pastor that for twenty years advocated "godamn" America.
Here thesis said no such thing. It was an academic school paper for Christ sake. Obviously garrisonjj never read the Michelle Obama thesis but he should read it if he can read on that level. It can be found here
http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf
Another link to this story is here.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
Why is it that the right wing nuts get such distorted notions? Probably because they are in the big echo chamber of Fox Noise and can't get out of the darkness there.
How about those right wing preachers who said God has damn America from being so wicked? BTW that is the same thing BinLaden says.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf
Another link to this story is here.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
Why is it that the right wing nuts get such distorted notions? Probably because they are in the big echo chamber of Fox Noise and can't get out of the darkness there.
How about those right wing preachers who said God has damn America from being so wicked? BTW that is the same thing BinLaden says.
I think you're right that their ultra narrow choice of "news" sources (including innumerable right wing blogs) creates a lot of this. But I also think that on some level they WANT to believe this kind of crap. It's congnitively consistent with their general world view, so they set aside any natural skepticism and common sense and simply accept it.
Good post, YMIHERE.
Frederick J. Ryan, Jr CEO of the site and a Republican
Robert L. Allbritton - Publisher of Site and Former CEO of Riggs National Corp
"resigned because the substantial legal impediments to Riggs's pending merger with PNC Financial Services Group Inc. had been removed and the remaining work at the company can best "be handled by accountants and legal counsel."
John F. Harris -Editor and Chief
Author of The Survivor- Bill Clinton
"writing with point-blank frankness about Clinton's impressive strengths and many weaknesses and painting an utterly fair portrait of one of the most charismatic and enigmatic political figures of the last 50 years."
Jim VandeHei - Editor Executive
"staff writer Jim VandeHei reported as fact an allegation in great dispute -- that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger in 2002 "at the suggestion of his wife," former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Wilson, a former diplomat specializing in Africa, was sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA to investigate a reported sale of Nigerian yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The CIA, however, denied that Plame selected Wilson for the trip, and the Senate Intelligence Committee did not reach an official conclusion as to who made the decision to appoint Wilson to the mission."
Do I have to go on?
So is it a "narrow" choice or is it innumerable blogs?
To be fair I would have to think that everyone seeks out a news source that agrees with their general world view as a primary source.
If you have never read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg you should check it out. He doesn't think news people bias their reporting (right or left) on purpose. They are just informed by a specific world view that is a starting point. They think that they think "right" and can't see the other side of an argument.
I try to catch things from both the right and left wing blogs and news sources so that I can see what others think. It is amazing the different paths the same story takes different reporters.
I think that we have lost the ability to see that two thinking individuals can take the same set of facts and arrive at different answers on what it means. Different starting points and values will do that.
Gonna have to agree with you about the paper. I thought it was pretty benign and not worthy of any sort of story at all. Cheesy reporting.
Perhaps my phrasing could have been better. The two aren't mutually exclusive. What I inteded to say was there are innumerable blogs all spouting the same narrow perspective.
My impression of you is that you're an educated and fair minded person, so the fact you do that doesn't surprise me. YMIHERE's comment (and my follow up) was directed at a very different sort of "consumer".
I agree, but only if you're talking about thinking individuals.
Reactionaries are a whole different kettle of fish.
True, but I think it is only fair to say that about both the right and left. Daily Kos and LGF for instance are both excellent places to view the "Hive Mentality" in full blush.
Agreed.
We had one poster to this board who was an excellent example of a leftist reactionary.
What's gotten to me of late, though, are the ridiculously fallacious anti-Obama emails that have been making the rounds, and the vast number of people who are embracing them without question. I mean, who in their right minds actually thinks this guy is some sort of terrorist Islamic sleeper cell bent on the destruction of America? Or that he and his wife "hate whitey" and plan to make that evident once elected? Apparently quite a lot of people, none of whom qualify as rational "thinkers".
If you want a perfect example of the different kind of "information consumer" you describe check out this discussion on global warming ...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=228731
be sure to look at the reference data in the links.
A good read.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the original poster's claims:
"Michell Obama's thesis for her doctorate describes"
1) "America as a troubled country on the verge of failure" -- nowhere does she say this
2) "blacks are not equal but are superior to the white race" -- nowhere does she say this
3) "She sees a black and white America" - ok I give you this... in the section Major Conclusion she states "I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive Black culture very different from White culture."
---------------------------------------------------------------
:2 cents:
People should recognize that they can only read so much into this paper.
(assuming they read it at all)
After all, it is not entitled "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson and her views on race" but rather "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."
It is an extremely narrow study which attempts to identify the extent to which different groups (separated by time) of black Princeton grads identify with their own race (separationism/pluralism) or the other (white) race (integrationism/assimilation) and ... critical to her on a personal level: "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black Community?" The latter portion she does not attempt to demonstrate through her survey but seems to take as self evident that those blacks who more closely identify with black culture will be more motivated to benefit the black community.
To provide some balance:
What some people (yes rational thinkers) want answers to is (for instance) whether or not Michelle Obama believes separationism is a good thing and assimilation is a bad thing? Apparently she fears that Princeton blacks may be too assimilated and thus less motivated to benefit black communities. Yet on the other hand she does not want to be so "separated" that she is seen as "black first."
If she sees separationism as preferable, does she endorse the type of separationism espoused by the individuals she cites: Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their work "Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America"?
Christopher Hitchens sums up Stokely Carmichael: "After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in the 1980s, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews that "when God puts you in the ovens—it's forever!"
http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/
It is a valid and rational concern to wish to know the Obama's views towards black identity separationists such as Stokely Carmichael and racists such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. The relationship with Jeremiah Wright was not a casual one of tacit support but a close 20 year relationship. Surely Jeremiah Wright expressed his same insane views on more than several occasions. Why did the Obamas remain close friends? Why did they not have the courage and integrity to stand up to Wrights racism? The press essentially gave Obama a free pass. He left the church and that was the end of it.
Nonetheless, in my view, Michele's position on this issue cannot be clarified by her thesis alone which was not intended for this purpose.
It is unfair to characterize her position without first asking her what that position is or worse to misrepresent her views entirely. The Princeton press has done her no service in this regard by restricting her thesis distribution until Nov 5, 2008.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
(Perhaps that is why the politico link above only contains the first 25 pages)
Unfortunately it is likely the media at large will not ask questions that will lead to an understanding of the either Michelle or Barack Obama's true beliefs as they are much more interested in covering fist bumps and tire gauges. So these questions will continue to go unanswered and the pundits on both sides will happily continue with their spin.
McCain is soooo stupid and low life. McCain should choose Paris Hilton as his VP !
She is hot and McCain isn't !
Trying to invent problems with Obama. The man's squeaky clean just accept that he is going to be the president.
Regardless of what you think about McCain personally, he has done more for this country that the Obama's ever have or ever will. And he's always spoken his mind even when it was diametrically opposed to his party's stance on certain issues. Even if you don't like him, I think you have to respect him for those two reasons alone.
Obama's wife strikes me as a little "off", but I can't quite put my finger on it... just an impression she gives off.
My 83 year-old white grandmother loves Michelle Obama. Talks about her all the time. Go figure.
On a personal level I think a lot of John McCain for what he went through as a POW and how he was someone who did not always just tow the party line of the republicans.And I do think that he would be a vast improvement over the current republican president.That said I don't like his adopting many of the policys he has on Iraq and lately taxes(maintaning the Bush cuts that were mainly for the upper incomes).On the energy question he is a mixed bag IMO,I agree with him 100% on building more nuclear power but think this stuff about drilling everywhere is not any answer to eithier our energy problem(US has small amount of worlds reserves) and it compounds the problem we have with burning fossil fuels and Co2 emmisions which are causing climate change.But the world won't end I guess if he wins lol.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Trying to invent problems with Obama. The man's squeaky clean just accept that he is going to be the president.
How do you know he is sqeaky clean?
Millions of people share this same blind faith.
I only hope if he is elected they are right.
But I think not, If he is elected his actions will be that of appeasement to those who want to destroy the country and appeasement to those within the country who are able to but choose to contribute nothing to the economical stability and growth of the country.
Increased taxation of those who work and increased social welfare for those who choose not to.
Combine that with an overall ignorance and misguidedness on national defense and we have a recipe for disaster.
But we will see.
dick van cock
Closed Account
Similar threads
