JESSE JACKSON'S CRUDE COMMENTS ABOUT OBAMA'S PRIVATE PARTS

[Del Zeppnile]

Yeah,.. Obama's looking like a real goofball.

You know,.. what with the Iraqi PM today expressing his

support for Obama's troop exit plan and all,.. huh Del?

Al-Maliki has already said he wanted a timetable for withdrawl. I believe he even said so in an interview yearlier this week before Obama left for his trip. We are all well aware of Maliki's concerns about any lengthy troop presense that might go on for more years. For him it is a political concern, not unlike the same concerns French and Germans had after the allied occupation and continued military presense in western Europe. No politician likes having to answer to his people for having troops in their country.

But our military policy has been clearly stated in as much as conditions on the ground will dictate the level of withdrawl, not a timeline. Timelines only serve the enemy's interests. If a date is set for withdrawl, then all the enemy has to do is wait for that date and for our troops to be gone, and then resume hostilities. It is a foolish policy, not unlike all of Obama's ideas on the war.

Which makes me wonder what Obama's policy really is. Obama seems to be trying to figure this stuff out as he goes. Obama started out saying that he would make an almost immediate withdrawl, and now he seems to be saying he will measure out the withdrawl over time. Why the change? Maybe trying to play to democratic moderates, don't you think? And why does Obama now qualify troop withdrawls as "Combat Troop Withdrawls?" What are occupying forces if not mainly combat troops?

The fact remains that in nearly all polls, McCain is still ahead of Obama on the issue of security and the war. Otherwise, why would Obama now be attempting to finally 'get an education' on foreign policy? If anything, McCain's policy on the war has always been consistent. McCain was for a troop surge even when Secretary of Defense Rumsfield was not. And McCain made the correct call on that as it turned out.

[Hermit_]

Al-Maliki has already said he wanted a timetable for withdrawl. I believe he even said so in an interview yearlier this week before Obama left for his trip. We are all well aware of Maliki's concerns about any lengthy troop presense that might go on for more years. For him it is a political concern, not unlike the same concerns French and Germans had after the allied occupation and continued military presense in western Europe. No politician likes having to answer to his people for having troops in their country.

Yes, earlier this week Maliki made it clear that any security agreement between Iraq and the US would have to include a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops... and the Bush administration (and McCain) tried to pass off the idea of a "withdrawal horizon".. ie, withdrawal at some future time that is always far off in the distance. But today Maliki set the record straight by specifically saying he supports Obama's plan for the withdrawal of US troops over a 16-month time span.. with room "for some minor adjustments".

Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's Iraq plan..

..and he totally punked the Bush-McCain plan.

But our military policy has been clearly stated in as much as conditions on the ground will dictate the level of withdrawl, not a timeline. Timelines only serve the enemy's interests. If a date is set for withdrawl, then all the enemy has to do is wait for that date and for our troops to be gone, and then resume hostilities. It is a foolish policy, not unlike all of Obama's ideas on the war.

The policy, as stated by Bush.. and McCain.. has been that if the Iraqi government asks us to leave Iraq, we will leave. We would have to leave, wouldn't we,.. since the Iraqi government is a democratically elected sovereign government? Or are you suggesting that that Iraqi sovereignty is a moot point?

Which makes me wonder what Obama's policy really is. Obama seems to be trying to figure this stuff out as he goes.

What's important is not that you understand Obama,.. what's important is

that al Maliki seems to be pretty darn clear about what Obama's plan is.

Obama started out saying that he would make an almost immediate withdrawl, and now he seems to be saying he will measure out the withdrawl over time. Why the change? Maybe trying to play to democratic moderates, don't you think? And why does Obama now qualify troop withdrawls as "Combat Troop Withdrawls?" What are occupying forces if not mainly combat troops?

He's been saying "withdrawl of combat troops" all along Del. You've just never paid attention; you've been summarily dismissing Obama from day 1 without ever having listened to what he's been saying. But apparently al Maliki has been listening,.. and apparently he likes what he's been hearing.

As far as "measuring out the withdrawal over time".. that's perfectly consistent with what Obama has been saying from the beginning of his campaign: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in" and (paraphrased) "I will not not be held to any rigid plans; I will be willing to make adjustments depending on conditions on the ground". That's the wisest possible approach; an approach that any intelligent Commander-in-Chief would take. You know this; and you know that I know that you know this. You also know that I know that your protestations are completely disingenuous. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't like Obama, and you're so afraid of him becoming the POTUS that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge when he's right on an issue.

The fact remains that in nearly all polls, McCain is still ahead of Obama on the issue of security and the war. Otherwise, why would Obama now be attempting to finally 'get an education' on foreign policy? If anything, McCain's policy on the war has always been consistent. McCain was for a troop surge even when Secretary of Defense Rumsfield was not. And McCain made the correct call on that as it turned out.

Yup,.. that has been the fact. But after today you're gonna see that start to change. As of today, Obama has taken charge of the Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan issue. Obama is right, McCain is wrong. It's been that way all along, but today al Maliki validated Obama's position on the Iraq issue (as did the Afghanistan leaders regarding Obama's plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan), and the result back here at home will be that people who have been unsure about Obama's foreign affiars acumen will now start to give him his due credit.

Regarding McCain being "right" about the surge: That, my friend, is a secondary point.. and is a point still quite open to debate.. you know, given that the goal of the surge was to 'improve security in order to give the Iraqi government “the breathing space it needs” to “make reconciliation possible"'. Security was certainly improved, but the Iraqi government has still NOT achieved reconciliation.. far from it, in fact. As such, it's reasonable to argue that the surge has not been a success.. you know, given that it's goal has not been achieved. Seems to me it's somewhat of a stretch to claim "success" when the primary goal has NOT been achieved. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyway,.. the more fundamental point is that Barack Obama is being proven correct in having said.. before the invasion of Iraq.. that the invasion would be wrong because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; because Iraq was not a threat the the US; because it would drain resources from the real central war front: Afghanistan; and because invading Iraq would serve to fuel anti-American sentiment. Right down the line Obama has proven to have been right; he is being proven to have had the wisdom, judgment, and foresight that John McCain lacked... and still lacks.

Obama's cred is on the rise, muh-man. You watch.. McCain's

lead on the 'security and war' issue is going to start shrinking.

One McCain consultant is anonymously quoted as having said today: "We're fucked".

Apparently that consultant acknowledges what you're still in deep denial of,.. eh?

I enjoyed your spin attempt though, bud. Sure, it was fairly predictable

right down the line.. but that's partly what made it enjoyable.

Yes indeed,.. today was a great day for Obama and a horrible day for McCain.

I'm curious.. does anyone still care what Jesse Jackson said?

Edited July 20, 2008 by Hermit_

[Gainsbarre]

Not so with B.O. - it's all about HIM and what makes HIM look good.

He further reveals his lack of understanding of history as well as the lack of characteristics that make up a true leader - respect and deference to things that are "bigger than all of us."

Not B.O. - he thinks HE'S bigger than all of us.

Stop taking all your own hype so seriously, B.O.

Yes well the USA has just had possibly the poorest, most incompetent Administration and President in its history for the last 8 years

So instead of going on about the characteristics that make up a 'true' leader, how about the USA just focus on what makes a competent leader for this election?

Well may you talk about how Obama 'thinks' of himself and what he 'may' do

But we've had 8 years to know exactly what Bush has done, the blunders, the poor performance, the evasion of political scandals, saving his friends, dividing America, sending the country into recession. And yes I know the oil crisis is effecting everyone's economy, but the USA wouldn't be looking at going into a recession next year if the Bush Administration had managed the economy better and was not spending hundreds of billions in Iraq.

It's fair enough people having ideological viewpoints, but surely if you're a Republican, surely you're not going to defend the Bush Administration simply on ideological grounds?

[Del Zeppnile]

Yes, earlier this week Maliki made it clear that any security agreement between Iraq and the US would have to include a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops... and the Bush administration (and McCain) tried to pass off the idea of a "withdrawal horizon".. ie, withdrawal at some future time that is always far off in the distance. But today Maliki set the record straight by specifically saying he supports Obama's plan for the withdrawal of US troops over a 16-month time span.. with room "for some minor adjustments".

Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's Iraq plan..

..and he totally punked the Bush-McCain plan.

Not really. The discussion over troop withdrawls has been an ongoing item of negotiation between the Bush Administration and the Al-Maliki government. I wouldn't be so quick as to claim victory for Obama, afterall Obama hasn't done anything to improve the security in Iraq or anywhere else. All Obama has done is 'flip flop' his position to a point where he now thinks he can claim the upper hand. In fact he just flipped right into the postion that Al-Malaki prefers, and is now trying to get some mileage out of it. I'm sure Al-Malaki is just effectivly using this political bone tossed out by Obama to pressure the negotiations his way. Not a bad move for Al-Malaki, but a really terrible and dangerous game to play considering the overall security risks involved.

The policy, as stated by Bush.. and McCain.. has been that if the Iraqi government asks us to leave Iraq, we will leave. We would have to leave, wouldn't we,.. since the Iraqi government is a democratically elected sovereign government? Or are you suggesting that that Iraqi sovereignty is a moot point?

No but like it has already been said, there are some matters to be negotiated before any withdrawl. Al-Maliki knows this and he isn't really interested in putting his nation at risk. But he knows we obviously have a vested interest in Iraq, and knows that he may impove his standing by showing more independence from the Bush administration. It's actually a very healthy thing to not appear like he is an American stooge.

He's been saying "withdrawl of combat troops" all along Del. You've just never paid attention; you've been summarily dismissing Obama from day 1 without ever having listened to what he's been saying. But apparently al Maliki has been listening,.. and apparently he likes what he's been hearing.

Obama has been saying, "end the war, end the war, end the war" for years. But now all of a sudden he has a "timeline" for ending the war.

As far as "measuring out the withdrawal over time".. that's perfectly consistent with what Obama has been saying from the beginning of his campaign: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in" and (paraphrased) "I will not not be held to any rigid plans; I will be willing to make adjustments depending on conditions on the ground". That's the wisest possible approach; an approach that any intelligent Commander-in-Chief would take. You know this; and you know that I know that you know this. You also know that I know that your protestations are completely disingenuous. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't like Obama, and you're so afraid of him becoming the POTUS that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge when he's right on an issue.

I don't believe that he is right if he really thinks he can pin down a timeline. We've seen that folly before, it never works. You can hope for it, and it sounds good during an election cycle. But when it comes down to realitiy, ONLY conditions on the ground can dictate withdrawl without compromising security. Obama keeps mentioning the cost in dollars and how the money could be better spent someplace else. But just what does that have to do with being a 'Commander In Chief' and determining the sitution in Iraq on the ground? Soiunds to me that he would want to end the war no matter what the conditions are.

[Hermit_]

Obama has been saying, "end the war, end the war, end the war" for years. But now all of a sudden he has a "timeline" for ending the war.

..now "all of a sudden" he has a timeline for ending the war?

Like I said, Delbro,.. you haven't been paying attention to what

Obama's been saying. Allow me to help you get caught up, bud:

------------------------

*New Yorker Magazine, July 2008*

"Obama’s plan, which was formally laid out last September [2007], called for the remaining combat brigades to be pulled out at a brisk pace of about one per month, along with a strategic shift of resources and attention away from Iraq and toward Afghanistan. At that rate, all combat troops would be withdrawn in sixteen months."

*Barack Obama's Plan, September 2007*:

All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year [Hermit: ie, in 16 months time].

Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven.

Afghanistan: Barack Obama believes that we need to begin to end the war in order to finish the fight in Afghanistan. He would redeploy at least two combat brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter- terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.

JUN 2006: Obama Called For an “Expeditious Yet Responsible Exit from Iraq.”

“What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq.”

[Obama Floor Statement On Kerry Amendment, 6/21/06]

SEP 2006: Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly.

“We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.”

[Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), 9/26/06]

------------------------

As you can see,.. Obama has been clearly and consistently stating his position

for quite some time now (ie,.. there's nothing "of all a sudden" about it).

As you can see,.. Obama's positions (on Iraq and Afghanistan) are

positions that have recently been (partially) adopted by McCain.

I look forward to your next round of spins, Del.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Hermit_

[Dzldoc]

Tom Brokaw reporting

[Hermit_]

Tom Brokaw reporting

..just doing what I can to help inform the uniformed, muh-man.

..or the 'remarkably uninformed' as it may be in this case.

Btw.. it doesn't escape me, doc, that you didn't refute a single point made in my previous post. Which I understand, of course, given that there's nothing there to be refuted. Del made a comment and I.. by presenting the facts.. thoroughly debunked that comment. Good night,.. and good luck.

[Medhb]

My last post was in response to this nonsense:

Just like Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright, Obama is only used to preaching to the choir. Once he ventures out into the real world he comes off like just another typical 'affirmative action type' canidate.

And how about the guts of McCain going to the NAACP to give a speech? Obama doesn't have even half of McCain's spine when it comes to facing detractors head on. Why do you think Obama is in complete FEAR of having town hall style debates with McCain?

Obama the new Jesse Jackson.

Let's talk about McCain's spine...sure it takes a spine to get in front of a room full of vetrans and say "MCCAIN: I've received every award from every major veteran's organization in America. I received every organization in America their awards. ... The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them. " When in REALITY

• Not only has he refused to support the 21st Century GI Bill, which the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed last June, he has consistently voted against increasing funding for the Veterans' Administration, which oversees all medical care for veterans:
  
• Voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA's medical facilities. [5/4/06]
  
• Voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care "and treatment for veterans," one of only 13 senators to do so. [4/26/06]
  
• Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. [3/14/06]
  
• Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending "abusive tax loopholes." [3/10/04]
  

Yeah, takes a spine to make a bold face lie.

Are you suggesting that I made up the story of Obama's plan to give a speech at the Brandenburg gate was made up by me? The story was all over the news this week. Do a search of the story online, it's not that hard.

I don't think McCain expects to get much of any support from black voters. But at least he went and spoke with them about himself and his postitions. If he hadn't gone, the same people who aren't going to vote for him under any circumstances anyway, would be hypocritically complaining that he never took the effort to show up. This is ALWAYS the same little song and dance they do, and why GW Bush eventually stopped even bothering to show up at the NAACP convention.

McCain was wise to steal the thunder from the NAACP detractors by not giving them an excuse to critisize him for not showing up. And to McCain's credit, it contrasts him as being a "straight talker" and not a "sweet talker" like Obama.

Straight talker?! McCain says:

He "received the highest awards" from all Veterans' Organizations

Reality says:

McCain's so-called "perfect" record has been roundly criticized by prominent veterans groups: He received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had "voted against us" in 15 "key votes."

Edited July 20, 2008 by Medhb

[Medhb]

Yes well the USA has just had possibly the poorest, most incompetent Administration and President in its history for the last 8 years

So instead of going on about the characteristics that make up a 'true' leader, how about the USA just focus on what makes a competent leader for this election?

Well may you talk about how Obama 'thinks' of himself and what he 'may' do

But we've had 8 years to know exactly what Bush has done, the blunders, the poor performance, the evasion of political scandals, saving his friends, dividing America, sending the country into recession. And yes I know the oil crisis is effecting everyone's economy, but the USA wouldn't be looking at going into a recession next year if the Bush Administration had managed the economy better and was not spending hundreds of billions in Iraq.

It's fair enough people having ideological viewpoints, but surely if you're a Republican, surely you're not going to defend the Bush Administration simply on ideological grounds?

How positively un-Amercian of you to defile our current Administration! Oh yeah...you're not American I certainly couldn't have said it better Gains...yeah! What he said!

[redrum]

I'm curious.. does anyone still care what Jesse Jackson said?

I might if I could understand him.

[Pb Derigable]

[*]Not only has he refused to support the 21st Century GI Bill, which the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed last June, he has consistently voted against increasing funding for the Veterans' Administration, which oversees all medical care for veterans:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...n-now-supp.html

heres the real truth.

McCain was against it because it was filled with pork spending,(something obama does well). when most of the pork was stripped out and more benefits was only given to more time serve was added. The main one being is if a military personel were to sign up again, they can transfer college credits to any close family member. It also make note of the same exact bill, with the college credit added and no pork was also making it way through congress, in which he supports.

[Medhb]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...n-now-supp.html

heres the real truth.

McCain was against it because it was filled with pork spending,(something obama does well). when most of the pork was stripped out and more benefits was only given to more time serve was added. The main one being is if a military personel were to sign up again, they can transfer college credits to any close family member. It also make note of the same exact bill, with the college credit added and no pork was also making it way through congress, in which he supports.

Derigable, thanks for that info. Interesting.

It's too bad for McCain that he wasn't able to verbally address that when asked directly about it...

[Pb Derigable]

Derigable, thanks for that info. Interesting.

It's too bad for McCain that he wasn't able to verbally address that when asked directly about it...

Yeah that issue hurts me a little bit, we need good people in the military, and most of them do unless family is invloved.

My good buddy was a former marine. He gets free schooling from the state of Illinios since he served. So he gets a check from his G.I. bill thats doesn't get used for schooling, but he has to move back to illinois to get that free schooling. He would liked to stay in the marines, and have his wife go to school and once he gets out, she should have a good enough job for him to go to school and afford a home along with the VA loans. in 8 years, they both have a great college education with no loans, but now he is the only one going to school, but they can use the G.I. bill money to help her go, but then they run into other problems.

I think the greatest thing you can give any 18 year old is a free ride to college. This is why im competly against paying college athletes any thing except food coupons. Belived me, i had to carried pipe for the last 5 years to make 90,000 a year, all my other buddy did was fuck girls, drink bear and have a coed do his homework while he sat on the bench for four years at U.of I. now he is bartending with his diploma, but some idiot will throw money his way.

[Del Zeppnile]

As you can see,.. Obama has been clearly and consistently stating his position

for quite some time now (ie,.. there's nothing "of all a sudden" about it).

As you can see,.. Obama's positions (on Iraq and Afghanistan) are

positions that have recently been (partially) adopted by McCain.

I look forward to your next round of spins, Del.

Here you go Hermie

[Del Zeppnile]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...n-now-supp.html

heres the real truth.

McCain was against it because it was filled with pork spending,(something obama does well). when most of the pork was stripped out and more benefits was only given to more time serve was added. The main one being is if a military personel were to sign up again, they can transfer college credits to any close family member. It also make note of the same exact bill, with the college credit added and no pork was also making it way through congress, in which he supports.

Exactly!

Those spending bills had more pork than a picnic at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Church.

... the Reverend does still have a church doesn't he?

Although he is a bit niggardly about spending the contributions except for on his many girlfriends it would seem.

[Hermit_]

Here you go Hermie

Thats some funny stuff, Delbert.

[Speed Racer]

I never liked Jesse Jackon to begin with. The only excuse I can think of is he's always acted like an asshole who think's everyone owes him something. I've never heard of him actually working besides running his mouth and trying to associate himself with politics due to race or religion.

To me Jackson just isn't involved in this election any more than his usual hysterical jabs. As far as politics as a whole. It's my understanding argueing over it will get none of us anywhere. We are just feeding them, like little political trolls who have to own a piece and part of everything and everyone because in realty they don't have anything more productive to do.

Sound familiar?

It should.

[Medhb]

I never liked Jesse Jackon to begin with. The only excuse I can think of is he's always acted like an asshole who think's everyone owes him something. I've never heard of him actually working besides running his mouth and trying to associate himself with politics due to race or religion.

To me Jackson just isn't involved in this election any more than his usual hysterical jabs. As far as politics as a whole. It's my understanding argueing over it will get none of us anywhere. We are just feeding them, like little political trolls who have to own a piece and part of everything and everyone because in realty they don't have anything more productive to do.

Sound familiar?

It should.

I don't come here to argue, I'm genuinely interested in other peoples views. There are some very well informed people posting here and this is just another venue for information gathering....

[Strider]

Like Ralph Nadar, Jesse Jackson has managed to make people

forget whatever good he did by the craven and idiotic antics of

the last 30 years or so.

He may have marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and all that;

but he has far outlived his usefulness to the black community.

In fact, both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton(they don't deserve

the respect of calling them "reverend") are part of the problem

when it comes to the black community and their ills.

Because both Jackson and Sharpton find it so easy to play the

"race card" and blame whitey, it gives many blacks an easy out to

not face themselves and see that it is sometimes their actions

that keep them down in the poverty gutter.

That is why it is imperative for Obama(or any serious African-

American candidate) to refuse to kow-tow to the Jackson/Sharpton

camp...he needs to tell them to f*ck off.

The majority of this country is still white and latino and these groups

are sick to death of the tomfoolery of Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton.

Whatever black votes Obama may lose in ignoring Jackson/Sharpton,

he will gain from whites and latinos that will be encouraged that he is

not beholden to the "blame whitey" crowd.

In fact, Jackson and Sharpton are so irrelevent and insane, that even if

you are a white candidate, you don't need to hitch yourself to these clowns

to get the black vote, as I think there is a growing segment of the black

community that is growing tired of their act.

The day that everybody just ignores the attention whores Jackson and

Sharpton will be a blessed one, indeed.

[Gainsbarre]

I never liked Jesse Jackon to begin with. The only excuse I can think of is he's always acted like an asshole who think's everyone owes him something. I've never heard of him actually working besides running his mouth and trying to associate himself with politics due to race or religion.

I think the thing with Jesse is that he knows he doesn't get on TV unless he's bitching about somebody.

[wanna be drummer]

I think the thing with Jesse is that he knows he doesn't get on TV unless he's bitching about somebody.

Or money for that matter

[Del Zeppnile]

Turns out that the honorable Reverend Jesse Jackson said something even worse than "cut of his nuts" when talking about Barack Obama. Turns out the part that FOX News chose not to air in that videotape was Obama using that awful word "NIGGER."

Imagine that; a civil rights leader using the most hateful and horrible word that a person could use to describe African Americans.

What a shameful disgrace this race hustling bigot really is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...se_jackson.html

July 20, 2008

The Uncensored Jesse Jackson

By Debra Saunders

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been known to show some fairly racy video clips of young women in various stages of undress. O'Reilly explains that while some viewers criticize him for showing salacious images as he denounces the decline of American culture, he has an obligation to show his audience the tawdry reality that prompted his righteous rant.

Not so when it came to Jesse Jackson, who was caught criticizing Barack Obama for "talking down to black people" on a hot microphone off air at Fox Studios on July 6. "The O'Reilly Factor" then aired some of Jackson's comments, but dubbed over a word when Jackson said, "I want to cut his n- off."

What was the deleted expletive? The Chronicle hasn't used the word either when reporting on the story, so here's a hint: On hearing the phrase, men have been known to squirm in their chairs, cross their legs, or at least put their arms forward defensively.

When the story broke, Jackson issued this statement: "For any harm or hurt that this hot mike private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Sen. Obama's campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal."

Nice try, but the damage was done -- not to Obama, but Jackson himself, who came across as a petty man who let envy get the better of him. His biting of the lip and yanking of his right arm made it clear that Jackson had given serious thought to a certain surgical procedure.

I, too, have been known to bemoan the decline of our culture. Proofs abound. But if network news shows -- and Fox News was not alone here -- can hint broadly at what Christie Brinkley's estranged husband, Peter Cook, did online, if they can cut to photos of baseball players and strippers and repeatedly air footage of scantily clad starlets in their cups, surely they don't need to shield their delicate viewers from the word Jackson used in expressing his desire to pare another man's legumes.

I can only assume that male TV news biggies bleeped the word because they've finally found a part of the human anatomy about which they are highly sensitive.

And it's below the belt.

It turns out O'Reilly withheld half of the story. Someone on Fox News released a transcript that revealed Jackson used another n-word. Specifically, he complained about Obama "telling n- how to behave." And I can understand why networks might bleep this n-word. It is racist and vile.

So why did O'Reilly withhold mention of the more offensive n-word?

O'Reilly told viewers that Jackson had uttered other ugly words, but that he would not air them because they "did not advance the story in one way, shape or form."

Later he said, "I'm not in the business of hurting Jesse Jackson -- because it does hurt Jesse Jackson -- and I'm not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that's not relevant to the general subject: one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy. So we held it back. Some weasel leaked it to the Internet."

Some readers might consider Jackson's remarks off-limits as they represented pre-show chitchat not intended for public consumption. But Jackson is hardly the first public figure to get caught in this snare. He knew he had a microphone on his lapel, that people might hear him, and that what he was saying was in poor taste.

He simply could not help himself.

Granted, whether it should be or not, it is different when a black person, as opposed to a white person, uses the two-syllable n-word.

But when a civil rights leader disparages the very people whom he is supposed to champion -- that's news. And when the black person who uses the n-word word is a civil rights leader who challenged the entertainment industry not to use the word and called for a boycott of "Seinfeld" DVDs after one of the series' stars, Michael Richards, used the slur as a standup comic -- that's big news.

It is news that buries whatever credibility Jackson retained.

Which makes O'Reilly's decision not to broadcast the racist n-word incomprehensible. O'Reilly was giving a pass to Jackson -- something he would not do for an 18-year-old girl who posted a sexual photo on the Internet.

And for that, he should squirm in his seat.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com

[Medhb]

Turns out that the honorable Reverend Jesse Jackson said something even worse than "cut of his nuts" when talking about Barack Obama. Turns out the part that FOX News chose not to air in that videotape was Obama using that awful word "NIGGER."

Imagine that; a civil rights leader using the most hateful and horrible word that a person could use to describe African Americans.

What a shameful disgrace this race hustling bigot really is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...se_jackson.html

July 20, 2008

The Uncensored Jesse Jackson

By Debra Saunders

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been known to show some fairly racy video clips of young women in various stages of undress. O'Reilly explains that while some viewers criticize him for showing salacious images as he denounces the decline of American culture, he has an obligation to show his audience the tawdry reality that prompted his righteous rant.

Not so when it came to Jesse Jackson, who was caught criticizing Barack Obama for "talking down to black people" on a hot microphone off air at Fox Studios on July 6. "The O'Reilly Factor" then aired some of Jackson's comments, but dubbed over a word when Jackson said, "I want to cut his n- off."

What was the deleted expletive? The Chronicle hasn't used the word either when reporting on the story, so here's a hint: On hearing the phrase, men have been known to squirm in their chairs, cross their legs, or at least put their arms forward defensively.

When the story broke, Jackson issued this statement: "For any harm or hurt that this hot mike private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Sen. Obama's campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal."

Nice try, but the damage was done -- not to Obama, but Jackson himself, who came across as a petty man who let envy get the better of him. His biting of the lip and yanking of his right arm made it clear that Jackson had given serious thought to a certain surgical procedure.

I, too, have been known to bemoan the decline of our culture. Proofs abound. But if network news shows -- and Fox News was not alone here -- can hint broadly at what Christie Brinkley's estranged husband, Peter Cook, did online, if they can cut to photos of baseball players and strippers and repeatedly air footage of scantily clad starlets in their cups, surely they don't need to shield their delicate viewers from the word Jackson used in expressing his desire to pare another man's legumes.

I can only assume that male TV news biggies bleeped the word because they've finally found a part of the human anatomy about which they are highly sensitive.

And it's below the belt.

It turns out O'Reilly withheld half of the story. Someone on Fox News released a transcript that revealed Jackson used another n-word. Specifically, he complained about Obama "telling n- how to behave." And I can understand why networks might bleep this n-word. It is racist and vile.

So why did O'Reilly withhold mention of the more offensive n-word?

O'Reilly told viewers that Jackson had uttered other ugly words, but that he would not air them because they "did not advance the story in one way, shape or form."

Later he said, "I'm not in the business of hurting Jesse Jackson -- because it does hurt Jesse Jackson -- and I'm not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that's not relevant to the general subject: one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy. So we held it back. Some weasel leaked it to the Internet."

Some readers might consider Jackson's remarks off-limits as they represented pre-show chitchat not intended for public consumption. But Jackson is hardly the first public figure to get caught in this snare. He knew he had a microphone on his lapel, that people might hear him, and that what he was saying was in poor taste.

He simply could not help himself.

Granted, whether it should be or not, it is different when a black person, as opposed to a white person, uses the two-syllable n-word.

But when a civil rights leader disparages the very people whom he is supposed to champion -- that's news. And when the black person who uses the n-word word is a civil rights leader who challenged the entertainment industry not to use the word and called for a boycott of "Seinfeld" DVDs after one of the series' stars, Michael Richards, used the slur as a standup comic -- that's big news.

It is news that buries whatever credibility Jackson retained.

Which makes O'Reilly's decision not to broadcast the racist n-word incomprehensible. O'Reilly was giving a pass to Jackson -- something he would not do for an 18-year-old girl who posted a sexual photo on the Internet.

And for that, he should squirm in his seat.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com

That's old news Del, I'm surprised you are the first to bring it up. Whoopie Goldberb and Elizabeth Hasslebeck actually got into quite a heated debate on 'The View' about this with Whoopie saying it was OK for blacks to call blacks that and Elizabeth ended up in tears.

I talked to a couple of my black friends about it and they said they thought it was terrible. I think it depends on how you were raised and the environment you were raised in.

I can see the point of view where they've taken a negative and used it to address each other in a joking manner, like I'll call my husband or close polish friends 'Polocks'....but crossing the color barrier is a whole different ball game.

On the other hand if you are black and condone it I think you are advocating separation instead of equality.

My husband was walking the other day and two black guys were out and one of him kinda rudely 'asked' for a cigarette, Joe gave him a cig but the other guy said to his friend "Nigga? Is that any way to ask a man for a cigarrette?" In that case it was kinda funny....ah, I don't care anyone says to each other in private...but on a public forum....entirely different matter. I don't think it advances the cause for harmony.

[Del Zeppnile]

That's old news Del, I'm surprised you are the first to bring it up. Whoopie Goldberb and Elizabeth Hasslebeck actually got into quite a heated debate on 'The View' about this with Whoopie saying it was OK for blacks to call blacks that and Elizabeth ended up in tears.

I was on vacation last week so I must have missed the news on it. Damn hotel TV didn't get FOX News so I was sort of in the dark.

But WTF? Is with that those damn 'The View' bitches always picking on little Elizabeth Hasslebeck? I'd like to see them have an Ann Coulter type instead of Elizabeth to keep beating up on, and then we would see who'd be crying. That Whoppie is one of the WORST KINDS of racists there is. Willing to excuse something for one person, while having a whole other standard for others. Her "view" is based on race, so how is that not racist?

I talked to a couple of my black friends about it and they said they thought it was terrible. I think it depends on how you were raised and the environment you were raised in.

I can see the point of view where they've taken a negative and used it to address each other in a joking manner, like I'll call my husband or close polish friends 'Polocks'....but crossing the color barrier is a whole different ball game.

I don't see why it is. Not that any of the Polish people I know would go crazy if they heard a non-Polish person use the word "polock', but it's still a pretty derogatory term. Just like nip, whop, spic, kike and cracker. All of them based on race/culture, and all of them meant to be derogatory.

However since Black folks have given the word "nigger" some sort of special status in terms of how offended they choose to be by that word; then it is they who have to own up to it whenever ANYONE uses it in any manner. They can't have it both ways, or the rest of us should get a pass if we ever said "nigger" too. Remember all the grief they gave Michael Richards for using the word? A stand up comic in a comedy club uses the word, but since he's "not down with it" as they say... all hell breaks lose. But when Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader uses the word, all we get are excuses and other qualifications for it's use among black people. BULLSHIT - Jackson of all people should know better. Excusing him only makes these black apologists seem insignificant and silly... just like Whoopie the big mouth racist scumbag.

On the other hand if you are black and condone it I think you are advocating separation instead of equality.

I say if one is a black person and are not also outraged by the hypocricy, then they are an insigificant fool who has no right to ever complain. And if another non-black person says, "nigger" then they should condition themselves to not be offended the same way they have conditioned themselves not to be offended by Jackson and the various Rappers and such. As it stands it seems like the only people still using that word are gangster rappers, the KKK and Jesse Jackson.

My husband was walking the other day and two black guys were out and one of him kinda rudely 'asked' for a cigarette, Joe gave him a cig but the other guy said to his friend "Nigga? Is that any way to ask a man for a cigarrette?" In that case it was kinda funny....ah, I don't care anyone says to each other in private...but on a public forum....entirely different matter. I don't think it advances the cause for harmony.

When a black person at work uses the word "nigga/nigger" in my presense I immeadiatly let them know that I AM OFFENDED and that I will not tolerate such talk. Same thing when they say cracker, honky or "white boy." Not that I am really offended -- I don't care. But I do require them to understand that it goes both ways. One time I was having some difficulty with an African American co-worker who is at least 35 years younger than me, and the kid (I say kid because he really seems that young to me) tried to intimidate me by standing up and bumping his chest into me (an obvvious violation of my physical space and the company policy). But when my reaction was just to say "son, do we really need to go down this path?" He took that as a racial remark and I ended up being talked to in our Human Recources Department. And although they didn't really say that the word "son" was racist, they said the fact that he thought it was racist was enough, and despite his phyisical action against me, my words were borderline on being "fighting words" by their definition. I don't know what the fuck plantet they are from, but bumping your chest into a guy in an angry manner IS CAUSE for fighting where I am from, although that part seemed to be completly missed my them. Plus the FACT that our obvious age differences should have been clearly sufficient to deem my "son" remark as having to only do with that and notthing else. Because I asked the question if I had said "son" to another white person in the same situation, would that have been a problem? and they said, "no."

Anyway, sorry for the rant. This shit just makes me crazy sometimes. At least Obama is wise enough to have stayed well above this crap my saying he does not excuse it. I hope he believes that, or he would never stand a chance to be elected. Jesse Jackson for some reason (although we have seen enough to really know the reason) is not that wise, or that principled.

Now I wonder if Hermit will give me credit for that part?

[Medhb]

I was on vacation last week so I must have missed the news on it. Damn hotel TV didn't get FOX News so I was sort of in the dark.

But WTF? Is with that those damn 'The View' bitches always picking on little Elizabeth Hasslebeck? I'd like to see them have an Ann Coulter type instead of Elizabeth to keep beating up on, and then we would see who'd be crying. That Whoppie is one of the WORST KINDS of racists there is. Willing to excuse something for one person, while having a whole other standard for others. Her "view" is based on race, so how is that not racist?

I don't see why it is. Not that any of the Polish people I know would go crazy if they heard a non-Polish person use the word "polock', but it's still a pretty derogatory term. Just like nip, whop, spic, kike and cracker. All of them based on race/culture, and all of them meant to be derogatory.

However since Black folks have given the word "nigger" some sort of special status in terms of how offended they choose to be by that word; then it is they who have to own up to it whenever ANYONE uses it in any manner. They can't have it both ways, or the rest of us should get a pass if we ever said "nigger" too. Remember all the grief they gave Michael Richards for using the word? A stand up comic in a comedy club uses the word, but since he's "not down with it" as they say... all hell breaks lose. But when Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader uses the word, all we get are excuses and other qualifications for it's use among black people. BULLSHIT - Jackson of all people should know better. Excusing him only makes these black apologists seem insignificant and silly... just like Whoopie the big mouth racist scumbag.

I say if one is a black person and are not also outraged by the hypocricy, then they are an insigificant fool who has no right to ever complain. And if another non-black person says, "nigger" then they should condition themselves to not be offended the same way they have conditioned themselves not to be offended by Jackson and the various Rappers and such. As it stands it seems like the only people still using that word are gangster rappers, the KKK and Jesse Jackson.

When a black person at work uses the word "nigga/nigger" in my presense I immeadiatly let them know that I AM OFFENDED and that I will not tolerate such talk. Same thing when they say cracker, honky or "white boy." Not that I am really offended -- I don't care. But I do require them to understand that it goes both ways. One time I was having some difficulty with an African American co-worker who is at least 35 years younger than me, and the kid (I say kid because he really seems that young to me) tried to intimidate me by standing up and bumping his chest into me (an obvvious violation of my physical space and the company policy). But when my reaction was just to say "son, do we really need to go down this path?" He took that as a racial remark and I ended up being talked to in our Human Recources Department. And although they didn't really say that the word "son" was racist, they said the fact that he thought it was racist was enough, and despite his phyisical action against me, my words were borderline on being "fighting words" by their definition. I don't know what the fuck plantet they are from, but bumping your chest into a guy in an angry manner IS CAUSE for fighting where I am from, although that part seemed to be completly missed my them. Plus the FACT that our obvious age differences should have been clearly sufficient to deem my "son" remark as having to only do with that and notthing else. Because I asked the question if I had said "son" to another white person in the same situation, would that have been a problem? and they said, "no."

Anyway, sorry for the rant. This shit just makes me crazy sometimes. At least Obama is wise enough to have stayed well above this crap my saying he does not excuse it. I hope he believes that, or he would never stand a chance to be elected. Jesse Jackson for some reason (although we have seen enough to really know the reason) is not that wise, or that principled.

Now I wonder if Hermit will give me credit for that part?

AWESOME rant Del! Fine points...and that is so ironic that you got shit for calling him son.

I especially agree with this quote of yours "I say if one is a black person and are not also outraged by the hypocricy, then they are an insigificant fool who has no right to ever complain."

I won't go through all your points again but....fine post!