Jesse Jackson's October Surprise

DavidS

Anti-Tea Party Member
Sep 7, 2008
9,811
770
48
New York, NY
Before you neo-cons post this about Obama, Jesse Jackson doesn't know shit about Obama's plan. He's just running his mouth. Everyone here remembers what kind of controversey Jackson caused a few months ago with his comments about cutting Obama's nuts off.

Well, now he's literally trying to do it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=89

EVIAN, FRANCE

PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation.
"And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out next month.
 
Before you neo-cons post this about Obama, Jesse Jackson doesn't know shit about Obama's plan. He's just running his mouth. Everyone here remembers what kind of controversey Jackson caused a few months ago with his comments about cutting Obama's nuts off.

Well, now he's literally trying to do it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=89

EVIAN, FRANCE

PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation.
"And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out next month.

Oh the Jews will love that ! :lol:
Glad to see he's got a brother overseas trying to help him tho.
 
I don't think I'd much worry about Jesse Jackson. I figured Obama isn't his best friend since he said he was going to "cut his balls off".

just sayin'

But I am wondering why Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.
 
I don't think I'd much worry about Jesse Jackson. I figured Obama isn't his best friend since he said he was going to "cut his balls off".

just sayin'

But I am wondering why Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.

Because Obama isn't sympathetic to the lazy, baby-making n*ggers out there who take no responsibility for themselves. Jackson and Sharpton think Obama should be very sympathetic to them. Because he's not, Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says.

Of course, Jackson may forget it was the world of Islam and Muslims who attacked us on 9/11.
 
There are more American Jews that are Democrats than Republicans. This could have a significant impact on the election from the Jewish community.
 
I don't think I'd much worry about Jesse Jackson. I figured Obama isn't his best friend since he said he was going to "cut his balls off".

just sayin'

But I am wondering why Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.

It's a lot harder to sell the poor pitiful black routine if one is president .

That's like killing Jesse's cash cow.
 
Because Obama isn't sympathetic to the lazy, baby-making n*ggers out there who take no responsibility for themselves. Jackson and Sharpton think Obama should be very sympathetic to them. Because he's not, Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.

Well, I'm not sure I'd characterize it the way that you did. But there is certainly a difference in Jackson and Sharpton's agenda from Obama's.... given that Obama isn't a race hustler and they are.

Of course, Jackson may forget it was the world of Islam and Muslims who attacked us on 9/11.

Well, I'm not sure that he's all that concerned about Hymietown. :eusa_eh:
 
There are more American Jews that are Democrats than Republicans. This could have a significant impact on the election from the Jewish community.

I don't think so. Us Jews are smarter than to listen to some blithering idiot who runs his mouth and isn't an advisor to the Obama campaign. Jesse Jackson's son, who is an advisor, has made public his request to get his father to apologize in the past. I doubt JJ Jr. agrees with his father.
 
Wow! Just wow! Jackson apparently really really really wants Obama to lose. What a worthless, self-serving, racist sack of shit.
 
I agree with much of what Jackson says.

Anyone who doesn't think our unbalanced policy in the middle east hasn't cost this nation is a moron .. but then again, anyone who thinks 9/11 happened as the Bush Administration said it happened is a moron and qualifies as the Valdectorian Magna Cum Laude Candidate for Moronic Thought.
 
I agree with much of what Jackson says.

Anyone who doesn't think our unbalanced policy in the middle east hasn't cost this nation is a moron .. but then again, anyone who thinks 9/11 happened as the Bush Administration said it happened is a moron and qualifies as the Valdectorian Magna Cum Laude Candidate for Moronic Thought.

You and I have had some pretty fundamental disagreements on this issue and I suspect we will do so on this board. I do not believe for a second that the Israel/Palestinian issue had a single thing to do with 9/11. And, frankly, if it did, I'm ok with that because we don't get brutaly attacked for working with our other allies. Nor do I believe that we put Israel's interest above our own... not ever. And, frankly, I think much of what this administration did, whle outwardly expressing friendshp with Israel, did much to strengthen Iran, which was terrible for Israel. I also think encouraging elections in the territories wasn't exactly in Israel's interest since it legitimized the terrorists of Hamas.

I DO believe that we act stupidly in villifying ALL Muslims. But giving a pass to the fundamentalists is folly. They have no interest in peaceful co-existance any more than any extremists do. (And that includes the extremists in the settlements, as well... you know, the guys who killed Rabin). Ultimately, though, the fundamentalists won't like us any better if we allow Israel to be destroyed.
 
Because Obama isn't sympathetic to the lazy, baby-making n*ggers out there who take no responsibility for themselves. Jackson and Sharpton think Obama should be very sympathetic to them. Because he's not, Jackson wants to cost Obama the election.



Of course, Jackson may forget it was the world of Islam and Muslims who attacked us on 9/11.

How interesting that a zionist motherfucker uses racist terms .. while supposedly supporting a black person.

Is that allowed here?

Am I the only one to catch this because no one else has said anything about it?

If its allowed here .. I'm on the wrong site.
 
How interesting that a zionist motherfucker uses racist terms .. while supposedly supporting a black person.

Is that allowed here?

Am I the only one to catch this because no one else has said anything about it?

If its allowed here .. I'm on the wrong site.


it's allowed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top