Professor Cornel West slams Sharpton and Blacks for avoiding criticizing Obama.

West slams Sharpton and other blacks who refuse to tell it like it is about Obama’s corporate sell out on this MSNBC forum.

debatesthatmatter.blogspot.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by inforeal

Loves Dr West man
What he says often resonates well with me, and he calls it as he sees it. Oligarchy and plutocracy yo, and yes Obama responds well to the marionettes.
I posted this vid earlier in a Dr. West Thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace,
spec

Good! someone is calling this out.

But a tad bit pointless imo.

To put it roughly, all the "joy" of electing the worlds first African-American president is gone. He won't be gaining a second term no matter what he does now.

Shame too. He could have done so much more for the community and represented himself as a great African-American leader. In reality, he made it much harder for another black person to become president again.

reply to post by inforeal


no democrat will ever bad mouth another democrat unless they are after their jobs.

they also carry "alot of water" for him to

but no matter how much i dont want obama relected dont be surprised if he is

Given that Obama is not a civil rights leader, we must be careful not to feel that his presence reduces the significance of true civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others. This means that we need genuine and empowered advocates within black America who can mobilize the people to put pressure on any administration that is in power so that our rights as Americans can be secured.

In other words, sitting around and hoping that President Obama will look out for our interests is not nearly as effective as pursuing our interests ourselves. Work must be done on the ground to lay out a black agenda, putting pressure on both Congress and the Obama Administration to see to it that our community is not left behind. Both West and Sharpton would likely agree with this assertion, and this can begin the quest for common ground.

The "common ground" may very well be that we need BOTH approaches. Someone to point out where we should put pressure, and someone to rally the troops to put pressure.

For some, supporting leadership means pointing out that the Emperor might lack certain articles of clothing, in order to guide the emperor's decisions. For others, supporting leadership means overlooking the Emperor's lack of an article of clothing, in order to maintain the subjects' support.

From the Nixon campaign to now, it is the image of the person that is sold to the public. Plus, we have become used to seeing unquestioning support for leadership, so much so that questioning seems, well, wrong. During the Viet Nam war, LB Johnson was called "baby killer", Nixon "warmonger"; the protesters didn't care who the emperor was, they were willing to hold both pres's feet to the fire.

The nation has changed since those days, refusing to tolerate any of the emperors subjects calling him out. Many citizens have been trained to accept and not question, unless it is the other guys emperor. Thus, many find it irregular, uncomfortable when a pres's supporters offer differing views. But that's the stuff our Republic was founded on, and the stifling of opposing viewpoints within a party is where it will end.

reply to post by neo96

no democrat will ever bad mouth another democrat unless they are after their jobs.

Hey neo, now why did you come on here to say that, specifically? You could have said, "no POLITICIANS will ever bad mouth someone from their party?"
So do you think Sharpton is after the presidency? He would never have a chance, and I am glad of that!
But man, the dem's this and the dem's that, can't we jump on the the 2 party bullsh*t wagon, together, to condemn the division caused by both sides?
I understand you are responding to this specific thread, which does entail democrats, but your comments are such broad strokes, and are volatile in their nature, as in guaranteed to get a defensive reaction, and I am wondering if that is what you are after, some good arguing? But hey, we are free to express ourselves, thank goodness, but sometimes a jab given is a jab received.

Peace,
spec

reply to post by Amperage


I don't agree. I don't think Obama's percieved failure or success will have an effect on the next black man or woman to run for the presidency. He didn't convince anyone that his skin color was "overcome". He just presented the image of a president and there are now a majority of people in the US that are not of the opinion that color makes the man (or woman).

He is, by in large, being judged on his behavior and politics.

Anyone who still jusdges the man by his color didn't vote for him in the first place and won't vote for any dark skinned candidate anytime soon.

I think Obama himself is screwed, but not because of his skin color. I really feel that as a nation we have mostly pushed past that point. The Americans that are not past it will learn to get past it or die in ever greater numbers over the next 20-30 years and what resistance does still exist will become less and less.

I feel that the act of electing a non-white skinned person to the high office in the land has made changes to the American psyche that can not be undone. It has liberated us in a very real way.

Still people that judge by race? Yep.. Guess what, there always will be.. Every race in every nation of the world is predjudiced.. but the numbers of people that carry that mentality is shrinking, at least in the US.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


the title of this thread do any democrats ever criticize obama? no

whats up with that video clip? external link didnt work for me.

reply to post by neo96

Fair enough man,
Let freedom ring....
Here' the vid:

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


i couldnt watch all of that video blaming banks and business are not the reason this country is so screwed up

that thing called the federal reserve is that is the biggest reason the central bank of america is the biggest problem we have.

when congress gave up its own power and gave someone else control of the entire financial system in america today is the result of it.

keep printing money and the nonstop devaluation of the dollar among a myriad of other reasons.

reply to post by neo96

I think the banks are a big part of it, but I agree the Reserve has the biggest shovel to dig us further into debt.
I don't think nothing's gonna change until an independent party gets established and gains more support, but it is always the money that stops real change, when it should be what makes real change. Why does Ron Paul never get beyond the primaries? Because he is up against some mighty forces that are entrenched on both sides. Why do the independent parties never get off of the ground(Nader)? The same thing applies, and I hate to say it, but big business does have a part in all of this too, not exclusively, but the oil,pharma and agriculture business' are often the ones that exercise their power via lobbying, positioning people in politics and paying lucrative support, and just plain ole power to do what they will and prevent real change. That, to me, transcends left/right and is just downright wrong.

spec

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


we do have some common ground on this subject matter however congress and regulations are the root cause of large banks.

just like how the small mom and pop farmers have been run out of the agriculture industry that extends into the business and finance world that we come to know today.

competition breeds cheaper goods and services everything the government does makes it harder for the little guy to survive and who can not diversify off shore.