Letters to the Editor
-
Rosenkavalier
I mean, yes, technically, black people are more likely to be involved in drug crap than other races.
Thrasher is correct and you are dead wrong. Blacks do indeed have a slightly lower involvement rate with "drugs" than do whites.
And the argument is not about whether or not Obama did "drugs" but whether or not the Clinton campaign was trying to make covert references to that drug use and then denying they did so.
That the Clinton campaign got caught I think is most illuminating.
I guess I'm getting old, but it wasn't all that long ago by my standards that we had the top three officials in the US all self admitted "drug" users. Clinton, Gore and Gingrich.
-
She didn't say she would "bar" people from events
Johnson is not part of Clinton's campaign. He is not paid by the campaign, he does not provide strategic counsel to the campaign, etc. How do you fire someone who has never been hired? He introduced her at one event and he supports her -- so do I. If I say bad things about Obama, are you, Tim, going to demand that Clinton bar me from ever attending another of her events? Moreover, last I looked, its still a free country and he is a well known private citizen -- neither Clinton nor her campaign can "bar" him from speaking publicly in support of her or her campaign. Do you honestly believe that Johnson should refrain from expressing his personal opinions simply because you don't like them?
-
AYC; Ditto
You are making sense yet again...
-
Rosenkavalier, you are wasting your time with Thrasher.
He is immune to reason.
-
I'm so sick of this nonsense, I'm thinking about "doing something in the neighborhood" myself
How much "community involvement" do you think I can get for $50?
-
Sounds Of Crickets Chirping....
By the way, Tim, what have you heard from the Clinton campaign concerning the contradictory positions concerning Mr. Johnson?
I thought as much....
-
uh
If drug use is higher among whites than blacks, then why does this study say the exact opposite?
The 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that the highest rate of current (past month) illicit drug use was among American Indian/Alaska Natives (13.7%), followed by blacks/African Americans (9.8%), persons reporting two or more races (8.9%), whites (8.5%), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders (7.5%), and Hispanics (6.9%). The lowest rate of current illicit drug use was among Asians (3.6%).
from
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.htm
In any case, once again, that's not the issue here. The tendencies of any racial group to do one thing or another do not necessarily reflect on individuals within that racial group, and I for one try to take people for who they are and what they've done rather than what they are.
The issue is whether or not a candidate's opponent should be able to use their admitted past actions against them. I am just continually annoyed at how people are using one man's possible reference to Obama's past drug use as a way to bash Hillary, yet again. It's getting so old, people.
All this proves is that people will jump on any excuse to irrationally assault Hillary, while safely guarding Obama on his pedestal. The double-standard is what's sickening here.
-
If this is the issue that makes you not vote for Hillary then you are truly caca in the cabeza!
Let's get completely real. Bob Johnson's style of speech was more "Pissed off Bill Cosby" than adroit orator. He spoke like he was your old Uncle Bob who lets his mouth run loose and says whatever was on his mind. There's no way that he would have taken talking points from a Clinton aide.
What I fault Hillary for was letting that man get up on stage in the first place. WTHeck?! Bob Johnson is out of the loop like cracked A-track tapes. Like the network he founded, BET, Bob Johnson is some hot boughie mess!
Everything after his speech was about cleaning up the mess that Bob's mouth started. And I don't fault her for meaning BOTH that what he said was incorrect, and for the sake of clean up, that he didn't mean what he said. We all know she has whiping the egg off that man's face. LET THEM HAVE IT.
Combined with Bill's fairy tale and Hillary's cold clear vision of the MLK/Johnson contributions, a few folks were like ENOUGH!.
But let's face facts, nowhere in all the drama were Hillary and Bill wrong.
1. Obama is living in a fairy tale if he thinks he can talk game like a pimp but never speak to how he will deliver. What are fairy tales but great dreams with no context. Bill and Hill work with reality, not fantasy. You dream it, they try to make it true.
And if it were a play, Obama is auditioning to play the part of Johnson, not MLK. Its a nice bit if he can play both, but I don't want to go from a president who does nothing to one who is trying to do too much! PLAY YOUR POSITION!
2. As wonderful as MLK was and how heroic both his person and his dreams for America, laws help shore the movement and give it a bigger life than one person, one time, and one incident. I wouldn't be drinking nasty water out of those porcelain water fountains without both MLK and the laws Johnson instituted. I wouldn't have been watching some white boy trying to "act black" in school without those laws in place. Instead of making out like Hill was dogging MLK, how about giving Johnson some props?
****sigh*****
-
ANON: Please stop slandering me just becuase you could not stepup..
I am user friendly in here..
-
rosenkaliver: That study is flawed becuase it is a 'SURVEY " study which requires people to
fill in the blanks and self-reporting..
I would recommend you rely on FBI CRIME INDEX and DOJ data this is actual data from our country's police departments not "survey data from drug users..
The study you have noted lacks this level of accuracy and validation when one seeks to use it like you are doing..
Just keeping you on point..Please do not get ruffled..
-
afro goddess; Nonsense LBJ was no MLK, you can fall in love all you want..
but pleasssseeeeeeeee.
I do not recall LBJ nor the other overrated fictional hero JFK igniting any civil rights train and hoping others would jump on board..
The laws you speak so highly of could have been written decades before MLK emergence but they were not.. White males are reactionary figures not icons in front of racial progress and human rights evolution..
Whites had to be compelled to be civil and 'do the right thing" To suggest without MLK they would have been good masters is insane and perhaps you should take off that afro wig sista it is messing up historical vision..
My homegirl, my chocolate syrup, my brown layer of sweet funeral home pound cake... come on now..can not have no revisionist history on the souls of MLK and other icons of the movement...