Black Man Preaching

If there absolutely, positively must be a black POTUS right now, why couldn't it be this guy running, aside from the fact that he's probably not thirty-five yet? (slight language alert)

Black & White on the Grey Matters 2 (War)

If he were a little older, I might be in love.

(Thanks to One Cosmos)

UPDATE: I saw gray hair so maybe he's older that first thought. But I'm taken.

UPDATE: Watch the guy's whole library. Again, be mindful of the language.

Comments

[T-Steel]

They funny thing about this is that I'm hardly a conservative but I agree with a lot of what he says. The fact that this video is perceived as SO different because we only see a certain viewpoints from black folks in the media, in office, etc. I know black guys just like the dude in the video who support Obama because "he'll be the first black president". I know black folks who won't vote because the abhor all politicians. I could go on.

What I'm trying to say is that black folks are diverse in thought. I've always knew this because I grew up in that diverse thought even though my parents were on the far far left back in the day.

[baldilocks]

I know black guys just like the dude in the video who support Obama because "he'll be the first black president".

So do I. I'm working on him too. :-P

[Donna B.]

baldi,

I'm older than you, but I'm in love with this guy! Who says we got to leave all the good stuff for those young girls?

[Joseph Welsh]

WOW, Juliett...
He'd have my vote.

[PattyAnn]

I just watched all of Zo's videos.
He would have my vote.
I hope this is the start of a new party. The Grey party.

[PattyAnn]

I linked this post at the Hostages, but I don't see the trackback?

[abinitioadinfinitum]

Baldi,
Yes I do still drop by and check your blog out.
I AM in love but not that strange weird kind of love. Now if you put that beautiful mind inside a beautiful lady, then let me know where she lives. This guy is a real MAN. but not only a black man, he is an American Man Preaching for all of us, black, white or grey. I can however understand your happiness that he is a black man. somewhat. :)
He would have my vote! God bless this young man.
P.S. What happened yesterday at the Ed Morrissy show, you can't tell anyone Hello/sarc
abinitioadinfinitum

[baldilocks]

Patty Ann: I don't see it.

abinitioadinfinitum: always keep in mind that every blog has a context. This one is no different.

I can however understand your happiness that he is a black man.

Happiness? Well, I'm not sad that he is, but make sure you're not letting your own assumptions guide you to your conclusions.

[BethW]

Dang! This guy is awesome. I watched all of Zo's videos last night. Even though there's some language I don't like my kids hearing, they're going to be watching these videos- the message is just too good.

[baldilocks]

What happened yesterday at the Ed Morrissy show, you can't tell anyone

I was multitasking so I missed it, darn it.

[zoey]

wow that was terrific. what a great guy - black, white, or martian. thanks for posting it.

[Terry Ann]

This guy is awesome!

[abinitioadinfinitum]

Baldi,
My conclusions can only be guided by my own assumptions but I am interested in why he is "Black" Man Preaching if you do not take some sort of joy or "Happiness" in your connection with him being black. I would take some sort of happiness if he were Cajun. Is that wrong? What should my conclusion be? What is the "context" of your blog?
.
P.S. We kept telling you hello yesterday. I thought you were having trouble with the vid chat.

[baldilocks]

I am interested in why he is "Black" Man Preaching if you do not take some sort of joy or "Happiness" in your connection with him being black.

The post immediately prior to this one is also about a black man preaching--but a sermon of a different sort. That's the context.

[no one you know]

Preach it brother! Awesome! Love this dude. "I can hear the liberals now nihnihnihnihnihnih" HAHAHAHA

[brotherbrown]

This is a comedy routine. Not especially funny, but I recognize the delivery style.

[DarkStar]

Last summer, there was a man wearing a shirt that was anti-Iraq war in a Home Depot store. I thought he showed ballz because the area I live in is chuckfullah military people and families.

Sure enough, in the time I walked one or two isles, I see him and another guy "jaw boning" about the shirt.

It turns out the shirt wearer is active military and the guy who took objection is active military.

The person who didn't like the shirt challenged him and the other person responded with military information that proved he was active military. Not only that, but he did service in Iraq as did the other. They agreed to disagree and shook hands.

TVD, this ain't a comedy routine although delivered in the style of such. This is sarcasm of the anti-war people at it's finest. This is a good video.

[DarkStar]

Damn, not TVD, BB. :( Sorry bruh.

[brotherbrown]

Well, a hit dog will holler, so let me yelp!

If we accept his premise, you are telling me that I should say I do NOT support the troops for the simple fact that I do not support the war? My reason for not supporting the war has nothing to do with the men and women who are fighting the war, so I reject out of hand that you can't "support the troops buy not support the war." Just as my reason for being anti-tobacco has nothing to do with the people who make their living in a tobacco company.

I am your basic peacenik. In the summer before my junior year in college, young men born in 1960 and 1961 had to register for the draft, so I did, but that was the closest I have ever come to military service. I have nothing against anyone who has pursued a military career; my cousin has maximized her career and by the time she retires I'm sure will be able to make use of a wonderful network in the civilian world to which I have no access.

There is a theory that by having a permanent military presence in Iraq (and other places), you keep the battleground off US soil. I can dig not having to worry about bombs on public transit, but I'm certain their is a more cost effective way, in dollars and lives, to achieve the same objective. If not, I'm here to tell you, the way of life they are purporting to be protecting won't actually exist as so many national resources are devoted to war.

Here on US soil, people are feeling the pain. I'd rather bring the troops home and use all that well trained human resource in the cities and towns across the US. I want the dollars, the gasoline, the food all in the US.

So, pardon me, I do support the troops and don't support the war. I want a president more inclined to work toward the goal of bringing the troops home than the goal of extending the war.

[waltj]

I caught only the first few minutes of the video, due to my slow internet connection out here in East Bumscratch, Indonesia, but from what little I saw, you're right, he rocks. I'll watch it from the archives once I get back to Jakarta and a proper high-speed connection.

BrotherBrown, I can't let your premise go unchallenged. Comparatively speaking, the US devotes far less of its national resources--manpower, tax revenue, materiel--than it did during, say, Vietnam, and vastly less by percentage than it did during a total war like WW2. During WW2, we had 16.1 million people in uniform out of a total population of 131 million. That's over 12% of the country in uniform. Today, our population is over 300 million, and a total military (active and all reserve components) of just under 3 million, or less than 1% in uniform. Likewise, with the defense budget. Sure, it's huge, at over $481 billion for 2008, but that's less than 4% of GDP, and about 17% of the entire federal budget. The largest single line item in the federal budget is Social Security, at over $609 billilon. Over 61% of the budget is made up of mandatory spending, which also includes Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and interest on the national debt, with all discretionary spending, like defense, coming in at less than 39%. Those are the figures. What you take from them is up to you, but you cannot say that military spending is breaking the bank. It isn't, and it can't. Now, obviously, the war on terror, to include Iraq, is not like WW2, with vast fleets of tanks charging across northern France towards the Rhine. It's more like a series of protracted, close-in knife fights in a number of dark alleys, with lots of things happening that most of us will never even know about. I choose to support this mission. You may choose not to, that's your option. But it's not bankrupting the country.

[brotherbrown]

Breaking the bank is not my point; this war is counterproductive and the country has domestic problems this administration has ignored.

The speaker stated emphatically that one cannot support the troops but be against the war. That is non-sense.

[waltj]

BrotherBrown, sorry, but that is what you're saying:

"...the way of life they are purporting to be protecting won't actually exist as so many national resources are devoted to war..."

You can make a fair argument that the Administration has ignored domestic problems. But it's not from a lack of resources because of the war. And when has the country not had domestic problems?

If there's a more cost-effective way of keeping bombs away from the U.S. than killing and capturing the bombers, disrupting their support networks, and then doing the long-term work to ensure that no bombers come along later, then we'd love to hear it. (Admittedly, the last has been our weak point, but we seem to be getting better at it). Like it or not, we're a global power with global responsibilities. Retreating behind the oceans may have worked 100 years ago, but that is not an option today. So let's hear your suggestions. As I understand it, "bring the troops home and use them as a domestic Peace Corps" is one. What else you got?

[brotherbrown]

I don't happen to hold the belief that 150,000 troops in Iraq are keeping Bin Laden's forces from US shores.

So, other than that, I'm up for suggestions. But I don't buy the nonsense that you can't support the troops if you don't support the war.

[waltj]

Well, actually, BrotherBrown, I was hoping for more suggestions from you, since your idea to use the troops at home was more of a concrete suggestion than we've had out of Pelosi and Reid since they took over Congress. Maybe you could add to that, because, while I might vehemently disagree with you in parts, there are other things you might say that would make sense to me. Compromise. Negotiation. Political give-and-take. It's a part of what made our country great, we should remember how to do it again without the partisanship and polarization.

As for me, OBL and his crowd haven't attacked the States since our troops went after the Taliban (yes, I know, that's Afghanistan. I spent a year over there). If OBL considers Iraq one of the main fronts in his war against the US, and he clearly does from his own statements, I believe we should take him at his word and destroy as many of his followers there as possible. We seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. And why pull out now, especially since the Iraqis finally seem to be getting their act together? Their final result won't look like American democracy, but why should it, as long as it works for them? They have a ways to go until they can handle it all on their own, I say we owe them that time.

As far as supporting the troops goes, I have no reason to doubt your belief you can support them without supporting their mission. There are others who can't, and let their hatred of the mission turn into hatred of the troops, which they probably felt all along anyway (paging Code Pink). The "mission" just gives them an excuse.

[Nice Deb]

I loved his looks of disgust, and dismissive hand gestures as he would turn his back on the camera.

"Liberals!"

I totally agree, dude.

[brotherbrown]

Oh, one more thing. With respect to troops as pawns, is not chess a representation of war? If so, if you look at the 4 thousand dead, most of them were pawns, but there are also plenty of rooks, a few knights, and rarely, a bishop or two. All to protect, the queen.