A 2005 photo recently surfaced showing former president Barrack Obama with Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan is an avowed anti-semite who does not hide his hatred of white people. Would this picture have made a difference if the media had run it during Obama's first election? Any theories as to why it was not run? Mr. Farrakhan has publically met with Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who refuse to denounce Farrakhan or his views.
If the media had run it? It's easy to find multiple sources that all say the same thing: the photo was only recently released. The media couldn't run what it didn't have.
Farrakhan showed up at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting in 2005. The CBC asked the photographer not to release the photo. Should we impeach all members of the CBC while we're at it?
Right-wing propaganda once again ignores the truth and spreads ridiculous garbage. Destroy all media except for Fox News and National Enquirer.
I would be curious what sparked such a vehement comment. It's a simple 'what if'. No different from asking what if Hillary didn't have the email scandal during the election. There is no right wing propaganda in the OP.
I agree my post was vehement. It comes from someone who is sick of a handful of extremists constantly bombarding HP forums with inflammatory right-wing propaganda.
They are dragging them down into the gutter.
The propaganda is is the easily proven distortion of facts, attack on the First Amendment and underlying racism that is so common among Trump lovers and Obama haters.
Hillary is irrelevant.
Promisem, what distortion of facts? I seriously doubt your ability to comprehend the concept of what is "propaganda." The picture was taken in 2005, Barack Obama was being considered as a candidate to run for president during this time. These are facts. I posed a hypothetical question whether this picture being released of Obama with Farrakhan to the media would have made a difference. I got this question from reading an article by a black journalist from the New Yorker named Vinson Cunningham who had the same question. Here is a quote from his article.
"When I saw a recently released photo, by Askia Muhammad, of Obama and a beaming Louis Farrakhan, I immediately thought of the Clinton campaign. What fun they could’ve had with this one! Muhammad took the picture, in 2005, at a gathering hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, after Obama’s star-making turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention but before it was clear that the Senator would offer himself as a candidate for President—when, in other words, the man was pure potential, unsullied in the eyes of hopeful Democrats. After some pressure from one of the caucus’s staffers, Muhammad agreed to bury it."
Again facts, the picture was buried and kept from the press. The question is if it had not been buried, been released to the public, would it have made a difference in the election of Barrack Obama. Maybe not, McCain was a horrible candidate.
Here is a link to the article.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annal … iled-obama
The picture was intentionally kept from the press, that's a fact, Obama was being considered as a potential presidential candidate at the time it was taken, that's another fact. Would it have made a difference if it had been released to the media? Hypothetical question.
Logic and honesty dictates it would be difficult to prove this as propaganda of any kind.
"Obama with Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan is an avowed anti-semite who does not hide his hatred of white people."
- Therefore Obama is a racist and anti-Semite by association, which the right has claimed thousands of times. (And of course he was a secret Muslim just like Farrakhan.)
"... Congressional Black Caucus who refuse to denounce Farrakhan or his views."
- Therefore again the CBC is made up of white racists.
"... if the media had run it during Obama's first election? Any theories as to why it was not run?"
- You are ready knew and admitted in your other post that they didn't have it and why it did not run. But you wanted to insinuate the media buried it on purpose, which is consistent with the unending posts on here about the evil liberal MSM.
Yes, your post is propaganda. It's the same stuff the far right has been pushing for years.
Interesting, the only person insinuating anything is you. Also interesting is how I posed a question from a black journalist. Would you react the same way to him? Try reading the article by Vinson Cunningham of the New Yorker. Are you saying a black journalist is putting out right-wing propaganda? Mr. Cunningham is far from right wing. Trust me.
Underlying racism? Had Obama met with a white anti Semite would that,then, not constitute racism?
This politically correct need to always look at skin color and then base opinions on that color is, in my opinion, racist to the core.
The worst racists are those that see racism everywhere they look, for racism is part and parcel of who they are and they will make the world racist even when it isn't.
Yeh. But,their holier than thou stances in the process are mind boggling.
LOL No argument there! It's what happens when an evil is viewed as good and shouted out to the heavens.
"Holier than thou" is not the best word choice. "Morally superior" is more accurate.
Trump supporters have a remarkable habit of turning accusations around. It's a habit they learned from their king. Their blindness is truly mind boggling.
It's what happens when we unscrew the spin and give the rest of the story.
Yes, the way they spin racism into their so-called rest of the story is impressive.
Do you really want to claim that Obama has not been the victim of a massive amount of racist and anti-Muslim propaganda?
Ok. I don't see anything racist, or wrong, in a picture of Obama with a black community leader. Call me racist. I'm used to foolish accusations from the left.
It's revealing how "avowed anti-semite who does not hide his hatred of white people" becomes "black community leader".
That's not a foolish accusation. Those are quotes from you and Mike.
Farrakhan is an anti Semite, by his own statements. He is also a community leader. I would think it was his leadership role which caused Obama to be in close proximity. Not his anti Semitic statements.
Good and bad walk hand in hand, often times. I liked how Obama would focus on good. Unlike some not to be named, nearby liberals.
Are you denying what you and Mike said in the previous posts?
I'm amazed how Trump and his morally bankrupt supporters can say something for the record and then deny saying it.
Let's recap my comments. Paraphrasing:
I said a picture of Obama would not have changed the outcome of the election.
I said if Obama had publicly repeated anti Semitic statements, it might have.
I said Farrakhan had made anti Semitic statements.
I said being in proximity to a community leader, who was also anti Semitic was not a problem, if the association was in line with his civic work, not his prejudices.
Your contribution has shown a proclivity toward an inability to understand the difference between truth and bias. Morally bankrupt is quite the charge, coming from someone willing to post racist comments.
I'm never impressed by what liberals know. I'm always overwhelmed by what they assume and don't know.
From the Chicago Tribune Review
“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through," Farrakhan said in his speech.
He said other things too, but I’m not going to spread his hate here. What interests me is the silence of the left."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu … story.html
The fact that Louis Farrakhan is an anti semite who hates white people is a fact that is easily established. What kind of community could Louis Farrakahan possibly lead? If the left would only live by their own standards, they'd love President Trump. First, they'd have to be able to grasp the concept of hypocrisy and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Judging by the posts here one recent left leaning poster might consider the word 'hypocrisy' and the term 'morally superior' synonymous. Perhaps that dictionary just hasn't gotten out for public use yet.
Hypocrisy is accusing someone of racism who is attacking racism on this thread. The moral inferiority is obvious (assuming any morality exists at all).
I'm reminded of children who used to say, "What you say bounces of of me and sticks to you." I see the same level of maturity and intellectual integrity on this thread.
To be quite honest, I see you have painted yourself into a corner by over reacting to a question posed and not being big enough to just admit it.
You've hurled insults and then complained that they boomeranged back into your corner of the thread. I have said nothing racist. Accusing me of that was your first mistake, in our exchange. You devolved the conversation. By not listening in the first place.
That first paragraph is a very controversial statement ; I have seen one like it here over the years dozens of times and believe when one does accuse racism --- where racism is NOT Intended or implied, then isn't that thought used in accusatory function probably racist in itself and something beyond hypocrisy ? Reverse racism ?
I think it is .
Hatred of anyone including liberals is not the Christian way.
Promisem, interesting how you've done everything required to get away from the main theme of the thread. I wonder why? So, can you answer the question "Would a picture taken in 2005 of Barrack Obama with the self-proclaimed hater of Jews and white people, Louis Farrakhan, have made a difference in Barrack Obama's run for the White House?" Why does this hypothetical question bother you so much? Does it illustrate something you feel inside that makes you uncomfortable but are afraid to acknowledge? Simply answer the question. I could ask about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright and all of Mr. Wright's hate speeches about white people, but I'll save that for another question of fact to make liberals upset.
My comments are very much about the theme, beginning with my first post and the one that critiqued your 3 main sentences in the post.
I also am responding to the comments I have been receiving in turn, including the blizzard of the usual insults from LTL.
If you really want a credible discussion, then you should include Trump supporters who are neo Nazis, KKKs, white supremists and other minority haters. Heck, the official KKK newspaper even endorsed him.
Then I will gladly have a respectful debate with you about racism in national elections on both sides. That's the rational, non-partisan, non-inflammatory way of having the discussion.
You have accused me of being morally bankrupt, morally inferior and racist. Usual insults?
Promisen, are you saying that Barrack Obama is no better than Donald Trump? Or, is it that quite a bit more is made out of racists who follow Trump than the racists who followed Barrack Obama? Why do liberals apply two different standards to the same situation? I want to use the word hypocrisy.
What is amusing here is if you bring up a transgression by a Democrat, when discussing Trump's transgressions....that's a terrible faux pas. However, pose a 'what if' scenario about a Democrat and you must be deluded and horribly misguided if you don't include anything bad you can think of about a Republican...or any soul who might have voted for them.
It's a crazy sand box of a world some imagine we live in.
Obama , The first presidential candidate to never be vetted ahead of running , half of America and youth-- that hardly ever votes and may never again , saw only ONE THING the first black candidate , Any black candidate in fact and yes especially black voters ,90% of which voted Obama . Political correctness is a sorry , sorry mentality . Yes women saw the , suave , politi-speaking academic elitist , mastermind , the good looking and as Joe Biden said , " He's really clean ?, he's articulate ,....he's really cool ,what's not to love ....."
Had these associations been shown and the DNC , RNC not been cowards , No he wouldn't have been elected .
Vetted ? No . But people did the same thing with Bernie Sanders , except the people who headed of the DNC anyway .
Gotta get you some of them super- delegates, Bernie !
Would not have made a bit of difference in the outcome of that election. McCain shot himself in the foot, the head, the hand, wherever. He lost the debates and had a running mate who was a joke. The only thing that might have mattered is if Obama took the stage and made statements that he agreed with Louis Farrakhan on volatile issues.
by American View 5 years ago
I know, it never happens.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 … ion-fraud/
by ahorseback 2 years ago
Because the mainstream media is so slanted , biased and self- brainwashed as to believe it can psychologically alter the American mind to its own ideological agenda ! Hey ! That's one way to discipline the media , they have been so brilliant as...
by Man from Modesto 5 years ago
Do you research candidates before voting? How could anyone vote for Romney or Obama?I wrote articles about a local Modesto mayoral election in 2012. Though I was on the first Google results page for the biggest search phrases on Google (and there weren't too many!), only a few dozen read the...
by crankalicious 6 years ago
Why can't the Republicans find a decent candidate to challenge Obama?I'm likely to vote for Obama anyway, but none of the potential Republican candidates even seems viable. It's interesting given Republican hatred of Obama that a decent candidate isn't out there. Newt Gingrich? Seriously? I think...
by Jezzzz 8 years ago
The story hit the airways that Palin said that she could beat President Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election. What do you think.. Can she do it?
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
With the latest polls of some swing states, some political "experts" are predicting a possible "mess" like we had in 2000. Which do you think is the most likely outcome? And for those of you on the FAR right or FAR left, tell us what you THINK will happen - not what you WANT to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|