Friday, November 07, 2008

The Rosetta Stone for BB's Obama Presidency Predictions

1. People with jobs want to keep the money they make. The Democratic platform is wealth redistribution and this appeals to those who are on welfare.

2. The tongue-in-cheek reference to people committing suicide is in reference to one woman who voted for Obama because under his administration she "wouldn't have to pay rent or her grocery bill" once he is elected. This woman actually voted and shows how crazy some of his followers have became.

3. The Democrats always cut military budgets to balance the federal deficit. That and raise taxes. Under Bill Clinton, we lost our military superpower status.

4. It beats anything I can figure out why rich Hollywood and New York millionaires scream in delight to elect someone who is going to take from their wallet and give it to whom they please. This is the Democratic Party's stance.

5. The Black Panther “civilian Security Force” stood guard over a polling place in the city of brotherly love this election and my reference is they will be severely irked when they find out that Barack Obama is just another self-serving Washington politician and not the end all to black problems in this country. Think about it – how much oil company stock do you think the man owns? Plenty.

6. Self-explanatory

7. My reference to Barack selling stuff could have just as easily been he becomes the number one Tele-Evangelist in the country, as he is one smooth salesman, whether it is toothbrushes or Chevy's.

8. Self-explanatory

9. Self-explanatory, but promises are promises and when you promise "change" almost anything will work, right?

10. "And for Blacks in their late teens to early 20s, the biggest danger is homicide-often at the hands of another African-American". Ebony, March, 1998 by Kelly Starling

The bottom line is this. I did not vote for the man any more than I voted for Bill Clinton, but I WILL support him as my President. I just hope and pray that he does the right thing.

4 comments:

Ike said...

In response to, "Which Candidate is Best? You Decide!", "Obama Presidency Predictions", and "The Rosetta Stone for BB's Obama Presidency Predictions."


"I simply watch the news sources and see whom Hollywood endorses and which candidate our enemies are rooting for and I vote for the other campaigner."

First, I can't believe that this is the honest cause-effect scenario that has you vote the way you do. Respectfully and partly in jest, I ask, when was the last time you voted anything but Republican?

Second, to vote against whom Hollywood votes for would be as inane as voting with whom Hollywood votes for.

Third, who do you feel shouldn't be considered an enemy of the United States? In your blog you've placed a collective Europe in with the likes of Venezuela and Iran. Who then are our allies in the world? Because we compete in a global scale economy (which at least in show, our administrations deem integral to the success of the developing countries in the world) with other countries, then are those that we compete against our enemies based on that? Because again, who then would be our allies? We cannot allow our desires to remain a superpower to be fueled by blind ambition. Tyranny is born in such ways.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, you spoke to me of the inherent obligation we held as a superpower to go into Iraq and deliver the Iraqi people freedom. Half way through the war you spoke to me of the obligation our government had to securing the American lifestyle through securing the resources necessary to enable that lifestyle, namely oil. And now in the waning moments of this administration you openly declare your desires to remain a superpower even if it means alienating ourselves from the rest of the world.

For the sake of humanity ever having the chance at peace, we cannot allow our mentalities to be so self-centered in our involvements. And if we are to focus on ourselves, which can be justified, then we should and abstain from involving ourselves only in those "noble" acts that we benefit from, because to me those are no more noble than the corporations who give to charities simply because of the tax breaks; they're worse.

In my ignorance, I still admit I don't understand what we are fighting for, but I do know American families are still paying with blood. And if we fight for anything but the tenets of justice and order, humanity and peace, then I say that blood is spilled in vain. Because I feel no blood is worth being spilled for material gain that enables the "American lifestyle" of luxury and waste. We are far beyond the means of supporting ourselves through a responsible lifestyle in this country. Our people, any people, when motivated with the spirit of humanity and progress can rise to the challenges life offers. We need not pilfer the spirits of other nations to do so.

The argument for being realistic and living in the real world is the most predominant and often stated here. But what are the realities of the world if not what we make them? And how does anything become if it doesn't begin somewhere? History has seen realities come and go, experienced and challenged by individuals and populations that we study and revere. Reality cannot be allowed to remain our sole justification of abandoning our collective ideals. Only complacency wins in this reality and can anybody offer the argument that humanity is far enough along that we can afford to be complacent?

All of my opinions stated above are stated in the form of argument alone.

Now I offer my forthright criticism.

I was very disappointed to read your "Top 10." It displayed a carelessness that I thought you beyond, Mr. Marshall. I respect you in many ways and although some of your points may have been valid, I feel your tact in delivering your points harbored dissent and lacked better judgment. Your observation on "the number one killer of blacks in this country is other blacks" when referring to the president of a country you claim patriotic loyalty to is beyond me. Your attempt to translate the remark into an understandable version offers nothing but support for the comment itself, when I feel the issuance of the comment, not the clarity of it, is what is to be questioned. If this is the onset of your "will" to support the next president, then I say you are no different than the dissenters you criticize for not showing the loyalty and support to the government when administered by your own political party.

Respectfully,
Ike

Baytown Bert said...

Ike, good comments all and as I've stated many times in the past, anyone who challenges us to defend our ideals is our friend. This works for me, as well as you and I find your mind to be especially a challenge and refreshing. Let's begin.

Concerning the Iraq war, I stand behind every statement I asserted AT THE TIME I made them. Facts become clearer with time and I, like any reasonable thinker, have had to adjust my beliefs as more facts become available. The United States IS a predatory country (empire) and as a Capitalist, I understand that. I've said many times that doing business with the USA is akin to doing business with the Godfather.

The US Government can demand a payback and will. Because we are a predatory Capitalistic country, we prop up and protect many many governments including NATO and the UN. Because of this, we can and do make demands and since we (our government) holds the purse strings, we can and do manipulate and attempt to control everything in our path. As an American citizen we (you and I) are recipients of this and admit or like it or not, we benefit. We also in our security are free to hate it, point out the injustice and even burn our own flag in frustration and anger.

I still believe with all my heart that Iraq was ripe for the picking and if we hadn't went in there, either China or Russia would now be sitting on that land and would have our throats in their hands. Regardless, we secured the area and every country on earth is now enjoying the benefit. Regardless, the WMD's WERE there, just unassembled and therefore according to strict UN definition policy, they could not be labeled as WMD's. Warehouses full. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

I've said many times that Gandhi’s "Capitalism without a conscience" is not my idea of how our government should operate and that a benevolent dictatorship (since we hold the purse strings) is a good compromise, as ugly as that sounds. Then there is the fact that any country, which loses the ability to back up its policies, will cease to exist and you have my military assertions in a nutshell.

My attack on Europe is purely economical. Given the opportunity, they would rend us into submission in a heartbeat, mutual trust, distribution of wealth and high-fiving be damned. Don't for a second think otherwise. Your philosophy of fair play is Utopian at best, but reality is reality and all those countries have a lengthy history of conquest upon each other. We just happen to be the ones with the upper hand right now and I don't want to lower ourselves to even up the score. Plain and simple. A redistribution of power for the sake of harmony with the USA is as ugly to me as a redistribution of wealth (my wealth). I worked for it and I want to keep it.

I make a very simple correlation between how ultra-liberal Hollywood movie stars vote and the conservative philosophies I espouse and that is still a valid point, although it may appear "inane". However, I actually take it much deeper, but to dumb it down so those who cannot make a decision will have a simple gauge. Simply put, if a person cant figure out how to vote, then listen to someone like Rosie O'Donnell and if you agree with her, then vote for the candidate she endorses. You are one who this advise is lost on and it wasn't for you or those who can think for themselves, so it appears stupid.

Now onto the dissection of your criticism: There was no "carelessness" or intention of "tact" involved when I wrote the "Obama Presidency Predictions". It was meant to be provocative and it worked. The point about blacks killing blacks is written because many folks believe a white supremacy group or individual will kill the new president and this is a common sentiment, which I've heard expressed many times in the last year. I'm sure black people are expecting this tragedy also and I am 100% against anyone assassinating our president regardless of who won or what color they may be. I am 100% against extremist groups whether they are right or left.

I love this country and I will support Barack Obama as my president, as long as he represents what I feel is my best interests and questioning my patriotism lacks tact in my opinion and is beyond question, as I enlisted and spent two years in South East Asia in uniform to prove it, as well as paid my lawful taxes for the last 40 years. Patriotism demands I hold my country and its leaders accountable and freedom of speech is and was purchased by every G.I. who has fallen on foreign soil upholding the policies of our government whether they pass our personal judgment for justification or not.

I appreciate and enjoy "conversating" with you my friend.

Sincerely, BB

Ike said...

First, as I feel it is most important, I address our respective references to your patriotism. In no way do I question your capacity for patriotism. In all of my conversations with you, it has never been a question in my mind. I do not claim even adolescence in the realm of politics, government, and economics as my knowledge of these areas are elementary at best. But my curiosity is vast at times, and this is the motivation for my comments, not insult. Your years of experience in life alone earn my respect. Your years of honor in serving your country, I do not yet feel I can understand fully enough to give the respect it deserves. I humble myself to this reality. I would rather have one Baytown Bert, than ten-thousand blind followers of Rosie O’Donnell.

That said, even an MIT mathematician can miscalculate. My criticism was made with this in mind. Although it is in practice of our first amendment right and clearly provocative (more than likely with good intention), I reassert my criticism that it lacks tact in dealing with a sensitive subject. Perhaps it is my confusion that results in my criticism as I cannot reach a decision on the tone of the blog. It appears in some points to be purely provocative, whereas in others it appears to be as you stated, “tongue in cheek.” This is where my criticism stems as I feel the issue at hand can hardly afford the nonchalance from somebody as patriotic as yourself. I have also considered the likelihood of extreme actions by white supremacists as I am sure somewhere in their dens of ignorance they are quoting Proverbs 30:21-22 as I type this. I place my head no lower because a man of a skin color not my own was elected as my leader, as I have never placed it higher than it need be. This unfortunately can not be said for everyone. An attack on any leader elected by his/her people to exemplify any such beliefs should always be condemned. But especially when this case, a monument of egalitarianism within a country long conflicted with the presence of racism, can set a precedent for the future progress of this ideal. A fateful error of humanity at this moment could far outweigh the positivity to be manifested by such a significant step. It could unravel our society at the seams. I give massive thanks to those who have done their part in thought and action to provide me with the opportunity to educate myself with alternatives to that kind of bigotry. And in the wake of an exercise of that bigotry and of that magnitude, I will take no comfort in knowing it adhered to a stat taken from Ebony magazine.

And as to my criticism of your dissent. You’re right, I suppose I wouldn’t have it any other way. I enjoy as many sides to an argument as can be presented. But it does seem like a double-standard: that there are those people, who demand that loyalty be given wholeheartedly to our chief executive and when that loyalty isn’t delivered to their tastes deem it unpatriotic and traitorous; these same people would and do then offer the same degree of dissent in response to opposing political parties. Within the aforementioned definition of “patriotism” again I say, I do not question your capacity for patriotism, but merely your willingness to fill that capacity when it comes to opposing political parties. I state this only from evidence of optimism towards one and current pessimism towards the other.

Now I know you value a well rounded argument as much as I do, so the question of your willingness seems easy enough to answer now. Perhaps its not about the political parties. You support your government “as long as (it) represents what (you) feel are (your) best interests.” I have arguments against your expression and justification of our government securing those interests, but they will have to come another day as the sun is coming up. Take care in the Bay.

Your Friend,
Ike

Baytown Bert said...

Ike, you amaze me with the depth of your intellect. I'm about a hair away from screaming cafe-rope and running for cover. The first time we sat down to discuss life, you were full of questions and in my opinion, ripe to either make good or go off into a world of confusion. I am proud to say you made the correct choice and that is to develop your logic to a level that I'm not sure I have attained. If I ever make it to the high office of enlightment, I want you to be my Chief of Staff.

The Republic for which it stands

Our founding fathers gave us a Republic, not a Democracy. I was probably about 17 the first time I picked up a copy of George Orw...