1. DCI74 wrote:

Bill O’Really is clearly running out of things to talk about Obama-wise.

2. Clifton Harrison wrote:

I agree, and you noticed the “Obama supporter” tag they hit Marc with again??

So is Marc a supporter, or is he not? That is the question…

3. Blaxx wrote:

Marc is not an Obama supporter. He is, however, an Obama defender. He won’t stand idly by while people are attacking Obama on outrageous grounds but he will join in if they are criticizing his many flaws that the mainstream media seems to ignore.

4. wow wrote:

I love how you just sit there and let him call you an Obama supporter. Virtually all of your public appearances feature you defending Obama, for all intents and purposes you ARE an Obama supporter. The problem with Fox News, and the reason that it is a lost cause for progressives, is that their ability to set the terms of debate force any left leaning guests to make a number of concessions right off the bat. Of course, given the fact that your paychecks read “Fox News Corp.” it is clear that you don’t have any qualms about selling out your political principles to pay the bills.

5. O wrote:

LOl DC

True dat Blaxx

I know this is off topic but did any of you ( I know u still savorin Caribana , Blaxx) hit up the Rock da Bells concert? My boy went and it was fiyah!

6. DCI74 wrote:

I missed it O but I heard A Tribe Called Quest killed it. I saw some videos yesterday and it was so dope seeing all of them onstage again plus it was good to see Phife doing better.

7. Tanya wrote:

There’s significance to the Bazaar cover????

Marc if they mistakenly introduced you as a gym teacher once, you and/or your agent would NEVER allow them to make that mistake again.

You have ALLOWED them to call you an Obama supporter 3 times (by my calculation)!!!!

Why do you make it such a point to tell us you ARE NOT, and have NEVER BEEN an Obama supporter?????

I do recall you saying that IF you were an Obama supporter countless doors would be opened to you.

SO you’re trying to open some more doors huh????

(Another stack of straw for the camel.)

8. O wrote:

My boy had some pics and I peeped them on Crackbook. It was hot even the Pharcyde came out! I was like where have they been!!!

9. Tanya wrote:

OMG!!! Pharcyde is the ish!

“She keeps on passing me by…”

“Your mama got a peg leg with a kickstand, your mama, your mama, your mama.”

Did they perform those joints???

10. O wrote:

I don’t know Tanya. I wasn’t there.

11. O wrote:

I wish I was there though!

12. Blaxx wrote:

DC, I was offered a ticket to go and I declined. Then the next day I seen the Alife “Lyrics To Go” t-shirts they were selling at the show and I got pissed off, I really want that shirt.

13. Blaxx wrote:

My bad O, I mistakenly thought DC asked about Rock The Bells. Didn’t mean to confuse the two.

14. O wrote:

Blaxx, it’s cool. However I should come up there and knock u upside ur head for not going. If I had known earlier, I woulda went. Seems these days, I been living under a rock and have missed out on a few things this summer.

15. John wrote:

Marc … I actually caught this interview on TV. I don’t normally watch O’Reilly but I was flipping through the channels and saw your mug on the screen just as Bill O was introducing you.

I thought you appeared much calmer and more in control than you ever have before. And you didn’t appear as eager to find some angle to argue, which you’ve always done in the past (i.e. yout constant claims that no one understands the “context” of remarks).

All in all, you did a good job of explaining your point of view in a way that even a conservative can understand it.

16. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

I agree John, the Doc has done an excellent job on this one.
kudos to you

17. Logic wrote:

What’s up Doc? Why won’t you dispute your labeling as an Obama supporter? You criticize Obama for “denouncing and rejecting” people as being “politacally expediant” but you won’t denounce or reject Fox labeling you as an Obama supporter.

Are you keeping quiet for the sake of “Financial expediency?”
(I did, however, notice you shake your head no when he introduced you as such)…not good enough.

18. Tanya wrote:

Logic,

Marc started shaking his head BEFORE Bill said “Obama supporter” in Marc’s introduction.

It very clearly came across to me that Marc was shaking his head (and offered a slight chuckle) at the “Obama is a Messiah” ad, NOT his “Obama supporter” description. (Although he may try to translate that slight, weak head shake as the objection to his introduction.)

Financial, Social, Professional Expediency – YES!

19. Tanya wrote:

Marc – BOOOOOO, to you!

20. Cézsar wrote:

The clue is in his motto Logic:

“They say life is a game so I play hard
I’m writing for my life ‘cause I’m scared of a day job”

It aint any more complicated than that.

21. ChgoSista wrote:

The ‘Rock the Bells’ tour kicked off here in Chicago. I went. I guess Tribe needed to warm up b4 they gave other cities the good show, huh…

22. carisma wrote:

Marc,

why waste are u time discussing this irrelevant topic. The only significance it had is to boost Tyra Banks’ ratings, plan and simple. Why is her posing as a fake Michelle Obama important? Michelle and Barack do not need Tyra using them for publicity. We will have the real thing in office, so why is Tyra important? She will do anything for attention.

23. Andre wrote:

Marc,

To echo Carisma’s sentiments, I can’t see why you waste your time on Fox News. Dude, you’re light years ahead of these clowns. Start your own News station and be done with it.

24. carisma wrote:

to clear up my statement, it was supposed to read:

why are you wasting your time

25. Neuromancer wrote:

Dr. Hill is smart to continue doing his bit on Fox. He has smart, occasionally brilliant insights to offer and Fox gives him a huge, worldwide audience to spread his word. Frankly, if he had not appeared on Fox, a lot of people would never have heard of him. And I agree that he is mentally light years ahead of many Fox News clowns….which is precisely why he SHOULD be there. He brings the sort of intelligence and logic that I wish we saw more of on TV.

As to supporting Obama, I think Dr. Hill has made his views pretty clear, both on this site and in his TV appearances. I think some people take too literally the “Obama supporter” label that Fox sometimes sticks him with. I take it to mean that Dr. Hill is, for the sake of this discussion, advocating a point of view that most will see as a defense of Obama. And what’s wrong with that? Some of these recent commercials are so preposterous that someone ought to speak up about them.

Bottom line: EVERYTHING that Dr. Hill said in this recent interview was right on the mark. People must be reminded that the media constructs personas for all candidates and public figures. And I loved the point he makes that any person who considers himself worthy of world leadership could considered presumptuous and arrogant.

Plus, how often does gassy Bill O’Reilly concede that a guest has “made a brilliant point”? Once every couple centuries or so, I think. It was worth watching for that alone.

26. Tanya wrote:

Everyone knows Marc is brilliant and impressive on all levels!

I just take major issue with the fact that he declared Barack as “Not My Brand of Hope”, and repetitively tell us, on this blog, that he is NOT an “Obama supporter” yet he proclaims on international television that he IS an Obama supporter. That makes him a liar!

I think he owes an explanation. Otherwise, he makes it very difficult to follow his method, rhyme and reason, or trust him, on anything.

27. www.rayandsamara.com wrote:

ditto Tanya!!!

28. carisma wrote:

Tanya,

Hold up now. Marc has stated on tv and on here that he is not an Obama supporter. When he goes on tv to discuss Obama related topics, he is usually defending something bigger than Obama. He goes on tv to defend black people. If he feels that a topic is being stereotypical or racist, he will debate the topic. Marc is not always about Obama, but Obama is black. Marc’s job is to defend black ideas and morale. I feel ya Marc!

29. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

You think that I owe an explanation? Here goes:

I have declared on numerous occasions, including on the O’Reilly Factor, that I am NOT an Obama supporter. I have challenged him from the Left, in unequivocal terms, on multiple issues. I have never implied or stated that I support Obama. As such, to say that I “proclaim that I am an Obama supporter on international television” is not fair. It is reasonable, however, to demand that I not allow them to call me one. When it has happened in the past, which I believe has only been 2 or 3 times out of maybe 2 or 3 hundred, I have brushed it off as an honest mistake or a calculated decision to simplify an argument. In the past Fox has similarly mislabeled me as a “Democratic strategist,” a term that I find equally misleading. Either way, it has caused me great discomfort.

That said, prior to this episode I spoke to a show producer and made it clear that I did not want to be listed as an Obama supporter. This is why I began to shake my head when O’Reilly announced me as one. To say that I was shaking my head at the commercial and not O’Reilly’s comment is ridiculous, as I didn’t even see the messiah commercial. (Some of you may not know this but the show is not a live broadcast, and I do not get to see the host or the video footage unless I’m in studio, in which case I get to see SOME of it.)

Following the show, I spoke with an executive at the network and made it clearER that I did not want to be labeled as such, at which point they promised not to do it. I have no idea how you all surmise that I’ve never offered resistance to the label. That’s a flat out lie.

As far as the political and financial expediency argument that you all keep making, I am sincerely baffled. What economic benefit do I garner from being considered an Obama supporter on Fox News? If anything, being an Obama CRITIC is far more profitable. Furthermore, the fact that I refuse to flatly support or diss Obama 24/7 does nothing to advance my standing with a network that often thrives on simplistic argumentation. Outside of Fox, particularly among black people, there is NO BENEFIT to being outside the Obama camp. If we’ve learned anything from Tavis and Jesse, the people are with Obama.

With regard to signing a deal with Fox, this was not done for the money or attention. This is not to say that I didn’t want those things at all –after all, nobody MAKES me go on TV– but that Fox wasn’t the only avenue for them. MSNBC and CNN were both viable options that would have yielded considerably more attention (especially from black people) and money, and less skepticism. I chose Fox because I sincerely wanted to intervene in Right wing conversations and offer a different perspective. I sincerely believe that my presence may help the struggle of our people. Naive? Probably. Pointless? Perhaps. But please don’t reduce it to greed. In all honesty, I donate more than half of my annual income to various causes and movements. If I wanted money, I could behave differently.

Some of you have suggested that I’ve “changed” since the blog started. Again, I don’t see any inconsistency. One of my first blog posts was about B*ll Cosb*, who I challenged publicly and almost lost my job. (Yes, he tried to get me fired!). Just like with Obama, I stood against dominant opinion even though it cost me severely. (To avoid getting sued, I won’t go into the various ways that I’ve been F***** with because of this). Ironically, many of the leaders whose back I’ve recently had didn’t have mine back then. At least not in public. But I digress… The point is that I’ve always taken stances that are unpopular, because I believe that Black people are worth the relatively minor sacrifices that I encounter….

Quite frankly, all of this has hurt me quite deeply. I have decided to take a principled stance on this election and on Obama, despite the CONSIDERABLE damage that it has done to my career. I have lost speaking engagements, jobs, and even friends because I sincerely do not believe that the Obama presidency will help Black people. I’m not bothered that people question me or don’t agree with me –after all, history may reveal that I’m wrong– but for people to question my motives for the moves I make is quite painful. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that this is what I signed up for. Also, I don’t deny the extraordinary privilege that I have to operate in public space. Nevertheless, I am a person, therefore I sometimes take things personaLY.

30. econwhat wrote:

Off-topic, but not too far off:

Anyone catch Kelefa Sanneh’s 8/04/08 article in the New Yorker entitled “What He Knows For Sure: Tavis Confronts the Obama Candidacy”?

Ok, back on topic:

I’m sure the good Dr. Hill has a very simplistic/uncomplicated reason for not checking O’Reilly about his oft-repeated moniker of “Obama Supporter, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill…”. I just wonder if O’Reilly said, “Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Hip-Hop intellectual and one of the leading advocates of the leftist movement in this great nation of ours…”(LOL) would the correction be rapid in coming or similarly overlooked? LOL

Seriously though, would Marc’ views be at all discounted if he immediately stated for the record that he is “not an Obama supporter BUT IN DEFENSE OF OBAMA…”? Would his impact be any different?

31. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

do your muthafuckin’ thing….

please excuse my french people

peace.

32. econwhat wrote:

Dr. Hill,
My comment was suppose to post BEFORE yours…don’t know what happened…

33. carisma wrote:

Marc,

I feel where you are coming from. No need to explain. It would be cool if you had your own radio show dedicated to these topics, that would be off the chain!!! I know I would be calling in, hehe

34. econwhat wrote:

Am I on some sort of time delay on this site…all my posts show up mad late…

35. Tanya wrote:

Marc, bruh,

I think (hope) you know we all look up to you and appreciate you. You represent us well! You’re a smart, good-looking, seemingly good-hearted black man who draws circles around 99% of the people you debate!

But I just honestly think you’ve been a little silly lately.

I’ve seen you come at opposition quick, direct, and diplomatically. I’ve seen you keep your points sharp, short, and stinging! I give you your props, big time!

But I honestly think your #28 is WEAK and borders on hyperbole.

“I have never implied or stated that I support Obama.” = LIE

Fox has on 3 (that I know of) separate occasions identified you, without correction, as an “Obama supporter” and you have failed to even flinch. (like you knew it was coming)

If they mistakenly referred to you as a gym teacher, or a recovering drug addict, once, you would be swift and sharp to correct them, the first time.

There is NO way an intelligent, focused, and driven young man like yourself, would tolerate an inaccurate label a SECOND time, on international TV. In fact, I would expect someone as on-point as you to not even allow it to happen the first time. (you’re slipping bruh)

The first time, fine, but the second time, it’s planed, the third time, you love it, PERIOD.

“As such, to say that I “proclaim that I am an Obama supporter on international television” is not fair.”

It’s not only FAIR, it’s ACCURATE!!! Fox News is broadcasted internationally, and O’Reilly is an international program! Since you ALLOWED them to call you an “Obama supporter” 3 times, it is not only a proclamation; it’s an enforced declaration, an internationally enforced declaration.

No one with sense, would go on international TV, hear an inaccurate introduction of themselves, and not correct it. That is, unless they have some ulterior motive, or “insidious purpose”……

“When it has happened in the past, which I believe has only been 2 or 3 times out of maybe 2 or 3 hundred, I have brushed it off as an honest mistake or a calculated decision to simplify an argument.”

BULL – Marc you would NOT brush it off if they referred to you as a former coke dealer from South Central. You are very earnest here to tell us you ARE NOT a supporter, why do you lack that same earnest on FOX????

“This is why I began to shake my head when O’Reilly announced me as one. To say that I was shaking my head at the commercial and not O’Reilly’s comment is ridiculous, as I didn’t even see the messiah commercial. (Some of you may not know this but the show is not a live broadcast, and I do not get to see the host or the video footage unless I’m in studio, in which case I get to see SOME of it.)”

Marc, maybe you can fool them, but you can’t fool me! I know how TV appearances operate. I know how O’Reilly operates.

What’s ridiculous is that you are trying to fool these people into thinking you DIDN’T see the commercial. Much of O’Reilly is not live, but much of it IS. More importantly, your conversation with him is LIVE. Do you really expect me to believe that you didn’t look at the monitor in front of you that WAS showing the commercial, the commercial that was part your LIVE discussion with Bill???? (Live b/c it was not you responding to a previously recorded Bill, without Bill’s feedback. You were indeed having a real time conversation with the man.)

You know it is a DAMN LIE to say that you don’t see the host or the footage unless you’re in the studio!!!! The monitors right in front of you, wherever you are, show you everything and everyone involved in the discussion, everything the viewers see at home, as well as a nice constant reflection of your mug. (If for some odd, unusual reason you are not, you need a new agent.) Do you want us to believe you couldn’t hear Bill either, and that you were just responding to questions you guessed he was asking????

PLUS, a brief analysis of the video shows you starting to shake your head BEFORE O’Reilly introduces you!

“What economic benefit do I garner from being considered an Obama supporter on Fox News? If anything, being an Obama CRITIC is far more profitable.”

“If I supported Obama, I would have countless doors opened to me.”
Comment by Marc Lamont Hill — July 3, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

Opened doors always equal additional benefit, be it economic, social, or otherwise…

Marc – Why is #28 riddled with so many lies?!?!?!??!?!?

And why do you see it advantageous to be identified as an “Obama supporter”; especially when you go out of your way to beat it in our heads that you ARE NOT????????????

Marc, I’m sorry, but I have to take you to task on this. I was too quiet the 1st and 2nd time.

36. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

<>

That’s not true.

<>

First, I don’t consider calling me an Obama supporter the same as calling me a recovering drug addict. Second, I have contacted the network each time that they have mislabled me. Not just when they call me an Obama supporter, but when they say I teach at Tulane rather than Temple, when they call me Lamont rather than Marc Lamont, etc. The fact that the mistake has happened multiple times is likely linked to the fact that I take positions in DEFENSE of Obama. Regardless of the reason, however, to say that I haven’t responded is not true. During our Father’s Day debate, I made a point to say that I defend Barack from the Right and critique him from the Left. This time around, I shook my head. More significantly, I contacted producers each time. Of course, I could upload emails to that effect, but you’d likely say that they’ve been doctored…

<>

True. I would also not brush it off if they called me a Nigger. The difference, however, is that calling me an Obama supporter (particularly as I’m defending Obama) is not the same as calling me a dope boy or a nigger. That comparison is stupid.

<>

Again, I have corrected each time they’ve called me an Obama supporter. I have NO desire to be seen as an Obama supporter.

<>

If you know TV (and O’Reilly) as well as you say, then you know that it is actually not live, but live to tape. This means (for the benefit of those not as “informed” as you) that the show is taped as if it is live and graphics/multimedia/etc. is often added later. I’m sure you also know that live to tape from remote satellites does not typically offer return feed, as it is extremely costly with no benefit. This is particularly true for me, as I don’t like to see anyone else through the camera because of the time delay. Instead I like to merely look at a black screen or, in the case of o’reilly, a graphic of myself. i saw no video or anything else. the graphics/sounds were added later. if you want verification, feel free to contact fox producers and/or the remote satellites in philadelphia. they’ll all tell you the same thing.

<>

That’s because I DIDN’T SEE THE VIDEO!!!!!!!

<>

You completely missed my point. I agree that opened door equals additional benefit. This is my point: If I were looking for additional benefit, I wouldn’t go around saying that I was NOT a supporter. Or, I would go around as a 24/7 basher, which is also lucrative. Instead of seeking additional benefit, I’ve chosen to actually take principled stances.

<>

You’ve been anything but quiet. Instead, you spent the last month repeatedly telling me that I’m lying. I’m literally stunned by the fact that you think I’d lie about something as silly as whether or not I saw a video, or how I’ve responded to being called an Obama supporter. Furthermore, your use of phrases like “DAMN LIE” demonstrates a disgusting level of arrogance. You actually proceeded to break down for me what “really” happened in the studio even though you weren’t there and were, quite frankly, dead ass wrong.

More importantly, your language and tone demonstrates a level of disrespect that was not warranted. I’ve never disrespected you or anyone else on this blog. I took the time to write a detailed and sincere response and you responded with ridiculous accusations and unneeded hostility. My first instinct was to ignore you, but I worried that other readers might actually belive what you were saying. This, however, will be the last time that I do this. I will NEVER address or acknowledge you on this blog again. Not because you disagree or challenge me –lord knows, most people do these days!– but because you have shown no respect to me. Although you refuse to do so, I choose to respect myself.

37. econwhat wrote:

“I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth.” Barack H. Obama

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington, I’m asking you to believe in yours.” Barack H. Obama

I’m certain there are many people who comment on topics raised in the Barbershop that have also visited Barack Obama’ website (www.barackobama.com) at least once no matter what their political affliation/orientation may be…right? If not, tsk,tsk,tsk…

38. econwhat wrote:

It happened again…

39. Cézsar wrote:

“More importantly, your language and tone demonstrates a level of disrespect that was not warranted. I’ve never disrespected you or anyone else on this blog. I took the time to write a detailed and sincere response and you responded with ridiculous accusations and unneeded hostility. My first instinct was to ignore you, but I worried that other readers might actually belive what you were saying. This, however, will be the last time that I do this. I will NEVER address or acknowledge you on this blog again. Not because you disagree or challenge me –lord knows, most people do these days!– but because you have shown no respect to me. Although you refuse to do so, I choose to respect myself.” – Marc

^And there it is. See Tanya, Marc too has also noticed.

Marc, what can I say? You’ve got to tell Bill O to stop calling you an Obama supporter. It can be mis-leading. This just goes to show, nothing good can come from jumping in the Fox-hole. You know how the saying goes: “if you lay down with dogs, you’re gonna get up with fleas man”

Carisma summarised it best: “Marc is not always about Obama, but Obama is black. Marc’s job is to defend black ideas and morale.”

That’s exactly what I’m about too so I understand, and that’s the initial reason why I tuned in to Marc. I dont know all individual Black people around the world so it would be silly to try to defend people you dont know, who in all likelihood have a completely 180 degree opposing point of view to me regardless of colour.

Blackness however ties us all together from a global/western point of view, and that I will protect with my life. Blackness also presents itself as a tool, a crucial opportunity for it to be used as effectively as whiteness has been used thus far in history. Another reason why I protect it.

40. Miss Nicole wrote:

First of all, regardless of whether Marc wants to admit it or not, many of us are aware of “Faux News” and their shady practices. So I am almost certain that Marc being labeled an Obama support is NOT a mistake.. It is their desperate attempt to be perceived as fair and balance..Moving along… On the O’Reily Factor Bill only allows his guests a short amount of time to respond before he starts imposing his bias and often racist remarks. Why should Marc waste time on the air just to correct something as small as being called an Obama supporter anyway? He did the proper and professional thing, he corrected them once he got off the air. Futhermore, when problems like these arise, I like to ask myself, does it really matter?? For instance, does being an Obama supporter or an Obama-basher really hinder or substantiate the arguments that Marc made about the Tyra Banks photo shoot? No. So why all the fuss people??

Second, the fact that troubles me is that regardless of what they LABEL Marc on television, as avid readers of the Barbershop we KNOW that the label that they ascribe to him to be untrue. Why isn’t his word good enough? Truth is, I respect Marc so when he says something to be true or untrue I believe him, he hasn’t given me reason not to believe him. If people are that critical of Marc where they question his integrity, I question why you view this site in the first place…

Third, I’ve been a reader of this blog for months, and I always thought that the comments and arguments were done ALL in good humor. I’m sadden to know that some people take these exchanges very personally…

Marc, sweetie just breathe… “the people who mind don’t matter, and those that matter don’t mind.” Keep up the good work.

41. Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Hill (or Marc?),

Yeah, I am just chiming in on this conversation; I am quite shocked myself at the tone of Tanya’s comments; that tone is so unwarranted and disrespectful.

Her claim that you refuse to deny that you are an Obama supporter is ludicrous. The logic of her claim is quite flawed because she somehow tries to equate Fox News’ blunder of calling you an Obama supporter “3 times” to you, yourself, proclaiming to be an Obama supporter “internationally”! Can we say putting words in your mouth?!

I mean, exactly how would Tanya like for you to claim that you are not an Obama supporter? By being the angry black man?! I bet Fox News would L O V E and get a kick out of that! Tanya, give me and the rest of Marc’s supporters a break!

Also Marc, I so agree that you would probably be a millionaire if you signed the dotted line to be an Obama-hater anchor on FoxNews! Sigh, that you are not a sellout (I am joking, of course)…

Marc, I really hope you are not hurt by the negativity of Tanya or any other persons that have criticized you because they are just haters, period.

I would say more (actually, as you will see, I will say more, lol), but I believe that it is pointless for you or anyone else to try to argue with Tanya regarding her claim that you are lying about not supporting Obama… Please don’t take her comments or any other haters’ comments like her to heart.

Nothing against you Tanya, but I just think you should tone down your comments about such a trivial matter regarding the fact that Fox News has mistakenly called Marc an Obama supporter “3 times”.

Afterall, IT IS FOX NEWS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! What should we expect from Fox News?! I hope you or anyone else do not believe in their claim of being the “Fair and Balanced” media outlet.

I am surprised they did not call Marc that more often (i.e., an Obama supporter) or commit any other foul errors!

Y’all got me writing at 3:50ish in the morning, lol; but, I think an additional comment was needed regarding the absurdity of Tanya’s comments about errors committed by Fox News, Fox News y’all, lol, geez. I mean like they do not commit daily errors, or as if ignorance, negative stereotypes, etc. etc. are not an inherent part of Fox News!

42. Tanya wrote:

Marc,

There is nothing hostile about my post! There was nothing in my language or tone that was or intended to be disrespectful.

If you felt disrespected, I apology for your feeling; I do not apology for my perspective.

But some people do consider the truth and being called out, hostile…..

Calling you a recovering drug addict IS the same as calling you an Obama supporter, b/c it’s NOT true (supposedly). Moreover, you respond with great vigor that you are not an Obama supporter on this blog, but when it comes to Fox making the “mistake”, you eat humble pie! I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

“More significantly, I contacted producers each time.”

If you contacted the producers the FIRST time, I sincerely doubt they would make the same mistake a SECOND and THIRD time. No one likes to make repeat mistakes in that business.

“The fact that the mistake has happened multiple times is likely linked to the fact that I take positions in DEFENSE of Obama.”

“I made a point to say that I defend Barack from the Right and critique him from the Left.”

So then, why when you’re critiquing Obama don’t they label you as a McCain supporter? If simply defending Obama earns you the label of supporter, then following that warped logic, simply critiquing him earns you the label of dissenter or McCain supporter, right????

“The difference, however, is that calling me an Obama supporter (particularly as I’m defending Obama) is not the same as calling me a dope boy or a nigger. That comparison is stupid.”

It is the SAME, in that they are both NOT TRUE! And considering the way you respond when someone on this blog insinuates that you are an Obama supporter, I would think, in your mind, being an Obama supporter is worst than being a dope boy.

The only thing I find stupid is that you ALLOW FOX to label you an Obama supporter, but you make this loud “principled stance” on this blog that you are NOT.

You are very earnest here to tell us you ARE NOT a supporter, why do you lack that same earnest on FOX????

“This is my point: If I were looking for additional benefit, I wouldn’t go around saying that I was NOT a supporter.”

But you ARE going around saying you ARE AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, b/c the majority of people (millions of FOX viewers) know you as they label you – OBAMA SUPPORTER!!!!!!!!! It is only the few people that read this blog that hear otherwise.

Why are you depriving the world of knowing this NON Obama supporter, “principled stance” you take???

“You’ve been anything but quiet.”

I’ve been real quiet on this. I didn’t say a thing to challenge you the first or second time I witnessed your “supporter” tag, even when it was addressed by others on this blog. But the THIRD time, dude, there HAS to be something fishy going on, and that is why I challenged you NOW.

“Instead, you spent the last month repeatedly telling me that I’m lying.”

Have I questioned/challenged you before? – Affirmative.

Will I continue to question/challenge you or anyone else who purports a public contradiction? – Affirmative.

Have I called you a liar (other than now)? – Negative.

Please show me where I “repeatedly” told you, you were lying, particularly in the last month??? – I simply have NOT.

“Furthermore, your use of phrases like “DAMN LIE” demonstrates a disgusting level of arrogance.”

So if I feel something is a damn lie, should I just weakly shake my head, like you purportedly did to the “untrue” Obama supporter label????

If you consider conviction to be arrogance, so be it! Many consider Obama arrogant. You stated anyone that believes they are worthy of world leadership is arguable arrogant. So it looks like I’m in good company! (whether you opine it disgusting or not)

But honestly, I don’t consider myself or my comments arrogant. I just firmly share my thoughts.

“Give heed to my reproof; behold I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you.” – Proverbs 1:23

43. Tanya wrote:

For the record:

Marc, I do respect you.

(“I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth.” Barack H. Obama

Comment by econwhat — August 7, 2008 @ 2:39 am)

I just exhibit my respect with direct and forceful truth!!!

See ya on the boob tube!

44. Cézsar wrote:

“I just exhibit my respect with direct and forceful truth!!!” – Tanya

^LMAO! Oh really? That’s what you tell yourself you are doing? It has become quite clear that you’ve been dangerously misguided on this whole freedom of expression thing. You will be crucified in public life with your acerbic tongue and vengeful outward manner, dont you know that? Hillary wasn’t even anywhere near as bad as you in public and look still how the media “chopped and screwed” her up as an angry irrational woman etc etc.

If you were a lawyer, your style of baseless assuming, surmise, and anecdotal evidence (none of which by definition offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a thing or other is manifestly true, and are for all intents and purposes just mere guesswork) would trigger so many objections that the judge would just hold you in contempt, throw you in a cell, and call it a day. You would indeed make a bloody useless lawyer. Just behave yourself.

And this? – “Give heed to my reproof; behold I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you.” – Proverbs 1:23

^What? You are actually gonna go there and use the Bible to justify your character flaws? That’s just low. That’s what the slave masters did. That’s why religion turns the stomach of all oppressed and independent minded folk. Please dont do it.

“You will pour out your thoughts and make your words known” to Marc but to what end? You dont even know the man so I find your personal attacks really curious.

Every so often I too have questions for Marc, and his answer either suffices or we agree to disagree bcoz it’s not that serious, and even if it is, it isn’t, if you get my drift. But you always have to prove a point to death.

That whole twisted logic: “they’re angry with me, it must mean I’m doing something right”, please understand its purpose; it is there to offer psychological comfort to those who know they are being wrong but can’t help being wrong; it is a coping/survival mechanism. Ultimately it doesn’t work, just ask Hillary; they weren’t hating on her bcoz she was beautiful, they were really hating on her (including the elders in her own party) and she lost…miserably.

I hope that is not a logic to which you subscribe.

45. carisma wrote:

Tanya,

Just respect Marc for the brave man that he is. He speaks out on issues willing to risk his career. I can always appreciate a black man that is down for the cause of his people. Marc may not challenge the right wing how you would like him to, but I think he does excellent by presenting himself as an young educated black man. Stop hating and let Marc do his thing. If you think he is wrong, you can go on tv and voice your supposedly correct opinion. Unless you have a solution, you cannot complain about the problem. You cannot give a solution if you are the problem.

46. Logic wrote:

Wow, it got heated in here!

Marc, I’m gonna have to go with Tanya on this one (you still my man though).

The point that I was making about the “financial expediency” comment (back @ 16) was, not that you were out for money but, that the denial/rejection (or in your case, the lack thereof) of labels/associations or whatever is often needed to achieve higher goals.

This is what you did (in my opinion). And that’s fine. I can appreciate the need to hold one’s tongue in order to accomplish a greater good.

The issue arises when you bash Obama for doing it, when its clear that you do it. Everybody does it! (if you think strategically).

47. Ann wrote:

Marc,

I have often wondered quietly why you were on FOX News channel when it is IN MY VIEW not very friendly to a person like me. But after reading your “explanation to Tanya” – ‘I chose Fox because I sincerely wanted to intervene in Right wing conversations and offer a different perspective.’ I understand your reasoning and I respect it. Hell it makes sense. Why not offer somewhat of a balanced program? I have no doubt that you love black people and you do what you do in hopes of bringing about change in our communities.

It is very brave of you to sit there and take the stances that you do- in light of the fact that you have stated more than once that you receive lots of hate mail and because at any time one wrong move could cost you your career. A lot of us would not have the courage to publicly state our beliefs and defend them for fear of losing our jobs or our standing in our communities. For that alone, YOU GET MAJOR RESPECT FROM ME.

“If you’re going through hell, keep going. ” ~ Winston Churchill

Keep up the good work.
~Ann~

48. O wrote:

Though Marc and I have disagreed on various issues over the years, the attacks on him in this post are outrageous!

Marc has never been an Obama supporter. We know how Fox is and how they use things to the advantage for their story, as a lot of media outlets do. Simply because you defend a person because they are being attacked unfairly, doesn’t make you their supporter nor does it simply translate into being on the opposite end of the spectrum. Last I checked we are human beings who have a diverse wealth of ideas and opinions which stem from our experiences of learning and being on this planet.

Why does it have to always be black and white? Last I checked most things were varied shades of gray. Meaning, some people don’t believe the hype and maybe have other things they seek in a Presidential candidate other than whether or not he is the same hue as them and if he gives good speeches. Have you ever thought that maybe Marc is so far left that Obama doesn’t cut it?? I know Obama didn’t cut it for me in the primary and I was actually mad that Kucinich wasn’t still running but I digress.

I have blogged off and on in the ’shop for some time and I always appreciate the different points of view, including challenging Marc on his particular stances, yet we- ’shop regulars (and a few regular lurkers- one of which I will admit I am)- have always maintained a mutually respectful decorum. If you don’t feel you are able to maintain that level of respect and agree to disagree , while not taking things as a personal attack, then this isn’t the place for you.

49. O wrote:

While writing the above post, I thinking about Omo. I miss him.

50. Clifton Harrison wrote:

wow…..i actually have a fractured hand, so i can’t even go in like i want to, but damn. I appreciate Marc for breaking it down in the shop, and for the record, i was attempting to be funn with post #2. I know he isn’t an Obama supporter..i don’t believe much of anything that comes out O’reilly’s (and faux news) mouth.

Tanya….Haha, sorry, but even marc put the mirror right in front of you and you tryna look past it!!!

like wyltk said, Marc-Do Ya muthafuckin thang!!!

Clif

51. econwhat wrote:

I called my cousin in Spain and asked her to go on youtube, look up this particular video and a few others, and give me her first impressions. She said O’Reilly was blatently rude and that from her view only, she would not have surmised Dr. Hill as a leftist, a centrist perhaps but certainly not a leftist. Moreover, in this particular video, Dr. Hill’s points were basic common sense. She further added that for models to prance about as “First Couple of the US” before the election has even occurred seems cartoonish, in bad taste, and advertise the Obamas in an ominous way. How is this helpful to American Voters. In short, this video was not helpful, nor enlightening at all in offering intellectual critism or news to affect my view of the Obamas so what again was it’s point? She jokingly added that Dr. Hill speaks very much the same as she does…with rapid clarity.

52. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

My nigga Clif…get that hand better, need you up is this ish!

** E-boo boo kiss** that’s from me to you, get better soon!

peace.

53. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

that was “IN” for those that may get confused, from that TYPO.

post 49….

54. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

oops..i mean 50

55. Blaxx wrote:

#

Comment by O — August 7, 2008 @ 11:01 am

I don’t write anything here without thinking about Omo. Threads like this simply are not the same. R.I.P

56. econwhat wrote:

The suggestion I would like to RE-OFFER to anyone reading this thread is to visit barackobama.com if you haven’t and voice any concerns you have that are not being addressed to your satisfaction to HIM…before you know it the election polls will be open..ya know? Ah heck, if you must, visit McCain “Mr. SURGE-SURGE-SURGE” also cause time does not stand still and certainly can never be retracted…ya know? Stop all this warlike posturing over silly stuff and start ensuring you and those you love MOVE FORWARD and ONWARD and CLOSER to your dreams FULFILLED…ya know? Let’s do this!

Vote for OBAMA!

57. www.rayandsamara.com wrote:

I am one of the bloggers who have been on this site since the beginning and I have noticed a drastic change in Marc over the years. Its been a few years and yes, everybody changes but I would have never in a million years expected to hear Marc be anti-Obama yet play an Obama supporter on TV. While I understand the explanation; is extremely dissappointing to me.

It is further dissappointing to see Marc team up with FOX. Again I understand the purpose but it is clear that Bill O’Reilly and the FOX producers do not respect his stance. It urked me to hear Bill OReily SHOUT ‘Obama Supporter’ after introducing Marc. I know for a fact that that was done intentionally and they really dont have respect for Marc. For if they did, they would’ve honored his request to not be called an Obama Supporter.

So this is why I am even more dissappointed: Marc, I see you as a strong black man who has always stood up for what was right in the community and for himself. FOX is playing you. FOX is anything but fair and balanced so why would they present you in an fair and balanced way? I believe you truly have good intentions but you are sleeping with the enemy. The Marc I was introduced to years ago would have never gone for that.

58. Clifton Harrison wrote:

all good wyltk, i had to literally go upside this bitch nigga’s head (long story), but in the proces, suffered a boxer’s fracture.

http://www.rayandsamara.com ,

i hear you, but we can’t absolutely know that bill did it on purpose (even though i think he did).

And Marc is fighting what looks like an pointless battle, but you don’t break through to people in one shot. You gotta keep chipping away at em, and sooner or later, they crack. unless of course you crack first, and i don’t think Marc will be doing that anytime soon

59. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

Samara,

I don’t mean to intervene, because this to me, seems a little personal. so i lend my opinion with the utmost respect.

if i can recall, marc has been doing “spots” on fox, for a couple of years now (and please correct me if i’m wrong). he’s been lending his opinion there, and on other outlets, and avenues, since this blog was created( again correct me if i’m wrong). let me say, that i HATE fox, just like the next man, so i truly understand your sentiment. My thing is, why do some of you feel that he’s changed? is it because, he has signed a deal with them, and opt to get paid for his opinion, instead of “lending” it? in any case, what is the difference? what is the change? Was it beef, from day one, he started at fox? i ask these questions, because i’m really trying to understand….

would it be different if he didn’t sign with them, and just continued to “lend” his opinion?

i do understand completely, why some of you feel he should voice his opinion some where else. but i also understand why he “plays” in the fox hole….

and you did mention that he’s changed in the past couple of years, and that may be true. everybody has to GROW….

i believe him, when he says, he tried to correct the error. he has done his part to correct it, the producers havent’t done theirs. so why take it out on him and his character? we all know fox is full of shit, and they twist and manipulate any and everything they can. i think we should just give the brotha some credit, for having the courage, to kick the real to those clowns…

this is just my opinion, so do with it, what you may. i just thought i’d help.

peace.

60. Logic wrote:

Why can’t Marc just say, immediately after being introed as an Obama supporter, “by the way Bill, I’m not an Obama supporter.”

Seems easy to me. For the record, I really could care less how he is labeled, I just think that this is an interesting discussion because it explores human motivations.

61. Clifton harrison wrote:

Logic, that does seem like an easy solution

62. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

“Why can’t Marc just say, immediately after being introed as an Obama supporter, “by the way Bill, I’m not an Obama supporter.”

knowing fox and how they manipulate things, i think even doing that, would just open pandora’s box…he should just ask them to call him exactly who he is…Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, an independent THINKER, period. “don’t label me as shit, but who i am!!!!”

63. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

“I’m a nigga, with an opinion, now move out my fuckin’ way”

64. Blaxx wrote:

Don’t you mufuckas got jobs? LOL. And they wondering why the economy is in the shitter, its cuz everybody bloggin while they supposed to be working. Tanya, damn near wrote 9 essays up there.

65. Clifton harrison wrote:

hahahaha…

66. Logic wrote:

LOL! I can dig it. Tanya always writing 5 page essays. for each post.

67. www.rayandsamara.com wrote:

WYLTK:

The problem isnt necessarily being on FOX. Its with being labeled something that he is not and allowing himself to be labeled as such without standing up for himself. I definitely dont agree with Marc on a ton of issues but I have grown used to that over the years. My beef is — if you’re a critic be a critic. But dont be a critic on the blog but smile on TV and be a supporter. If that’s not modern day cooning then I dont know what is!

Here’s the deal: if you ARE a critic, then be proud of being a critic and dont let FOX pigeon hole you into being ‘the black voice & supporter’. I agree with Logic in #58. Marc couldve correct Bill O’Reilly many times but he doesnt. A TV smile and head nod just doesnt cut it.

68. econwhat wrote:

*warning* context change right about…now.

“…This “Defending” Obama stuff is getting quite old…” INDEED!

VERITAS!!!!

check out http://www.barackobama.com for the REAL!

OBAMA IN ‘08

69. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

To say that I go on TV and pretend to be a supporter is simply not true. When I get calls from Fox, I am OFTEN asked to defend Obama on issues. Typically, I say no because I don’t agree with the issue. As I’ve said before, I’ve been on Fox literally hundreds of times this year. Even the most vocal critics on here acknowledge that they’ve only labeled me a “supporter” two or three times. How can you say that I could’ve corrected O’REilly “many times”. Why are we acting as if this is a regular practice? Furthermore, I have been identified as an Obama critic MANY times on Fox, including the O’Reilly factor. I’m genuinely confused how 3 times out of hundreds consitutes a routine practice that I’ve ignored. Furthermore, to say that I’m on there cooning seems a bit much. I don’t say one thing on the bog and something else on the tv. I’ve defended him on the blog countless times; in fact i just wrote a blog last week talking about how tireed i was of defending him in the blog. I do the same on tv. The reality is that I critique and support Barack, depending on the ISSUE.

To say that I could have interjected when Bill introduced me is true. The reason why I do not, quite honestly, is that I never considered how significant an issue it was to other people until talking to you all. It didn’t bother me because I knew (and still believe) that anyone watching the clips can see that I’m not 100% for or against him. To me, the fact that I was defending Obama on that particular point was the issue. That said, I see your arguments and agree with them. This is why I made a point to contact the producers of the show (which is not a small thing to do) to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

On a slightly different note, how do you all make sense of Barack Obama telling one group one thing (e.g., Palestinians, National Cubans, etc.) and then something else to another group (e.g., Zionists, Florida Cubans, etc.). Also, when I’ve challenged him for not standing up for Sean Bell or dismissing reparations, people have said that he’s just “doing what he has to do to get elected.” How is this acceptable? How is this not “cooning” for voters?

70. Neuromancer wrote:

Doc Hill: Just keep on going man. You have more intelligence, integrity and courage in your big toe than all of the Fox news network and more than some of the idiots posting on this thread. Stay strong and know that you are one of the good guys.

71. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

he’s “Negro Man” the action figure, to be exact LOL. . .

sidebar: Sammy i feel you…the Doc said he’d fix it, so hopefully, it’ll be no more confusion…

peace.

72. Blaxx wrote:

LOL, I said to my sister a while ago “Dr. Hill is so good at defending his opinion and defending himself. Whether it be on TV or on his blog” and her response was “Well what the hell do you expect? He does it so often”

So true…

73. Andre wrote:

On a slightly different note, how do you all make sense of Barack Obama telling one group one thing (e.g., Palestinians, National Cubans, etc.) and then something else to another group (e.g., Zionists, Florida Cubans, etc.). Also, when I’ve challenged him for not standing up for Sean Bell or dismissing reparations, people have said that he’s just “doing what he has to do to get elected.” How is this acceptable? How is this not “cooning” for voters?

That’s easy. It’s not “cooning” when a white, 70-year-old Republican presidential candidate does the same thing. I’m just sayin…

Back to the matter at hand: I’m not willing to go as far as some of the posters in accusing you of double talk or whatever the charges may be. I suppose I can see their argument on the one hand. Still, this probably ranks up there as one of those non-issues that’s getting way too much air time. The more relevant question remains: why waste your time trying to enlighten the clowns who subscribe to Fox Noise? They’re not quite ready for the likes of you yet.

A’ight. I guess I’m done beating a dead horse. You get the point…

74. carisma wrote:

“On a slightly different note, how do you all make sense of Barack Obama telling one group one thing (e.g., Palestinians, National Cubans, etc.) and then something else to another group (e.g., Zionists, Florida Cubans, etc.). Also, when I’ve challenged him for not standing up for Sean Bell or dismissing reparations, people have said that he’s just “doing what he has to do to get elected.” How is this acceptable? How is this not “cooning” for voters?” -Marc

Word to big bird.. I feel you on some of these statements and not so much on others. I do give Obama the “side eye” for being two faced on telling different things to different ethnic groups. I understand that he is doing this to get elected. When he does this, it seems that he is showing favoritism to all ethnicities except black people. I understand that he cannot appear to be the pro-black politician like Al Sharpton and Messy Jesse, but he should always stand up for injustice like Jena 6, Hurricane Katrina, etc.(in the case of Sean Bell, which he stated he issued a statement about it).

The only disagreement I have with you is on the subject of reparations. First, we must define what we mean by reparations. As black people, do we want an apology, money, tax cuts, better urban living, and/or land? I think all of the above would be appropriate reparations for black people, but the big question is this, “After we are given all of these reparations, how will we be viewed in America”? As menaces to society, thugs, baby mamas, dope dealers, high school drop outs, ghetto? My point is that no matter what we receive by the government, it will do us no good until we as black people stop the self loathing that white people have programmed us to do. I don’t want to see the Dave Chappelle skit “I’m rich, bitch” come to life, haha..I’m with Barack on that subject. We don’t need more handouts from white people. We need to get it for ourselves. Most black do not understand that in order to even receive reparations, there is gonna take alot of black unity, something that we lack. We may even have to go to war about it, because they do not respect all of that marching and protesting like in the 60s. The only reason civil rights’ bills were passed in the 60s, were not only because of marching and protesting, but they saw black people not afraid to FIGHT back (Black Panthers, Nation of Islam). Their worst enemy is a black man/woman with a gun and a book. They only understand and respect their methods of control, and that is war and destruction. Sorry to be so militant, but it’s the truth.

75. Tanya wrote:

Charisma,

“Just respect Marc for the brave man that he is.”

I do respect Marc, I really do.

I just do not see him as brave. Not if he can’t tell Bill, “I am not an Obama supporter.”

Logic,

“I can appreciate the need to hold one’s tongue in order to accomplish a greater good. The issue arises when you bash Obama for doing it, when its clear that you do it.”

True! Consign!

Samara,

“I would have never in a million years expected to hear Marc be anti-Obama yet play an Obama supporter on TV. While I understand the explanation; is extremely dissappointing to me.”

I feel you. I feel like I’m watching Marc make the transition from Black Leader, to Leading Black!!! And that hurts me! I can’t tell you how excited I got the first time I saw Marc devour his opponent on TV. I thought he was the next great black hope! Now, I’m not so sure.

76. carisma wrote:

“I just do not see him as brave. Not if he can’t tell Bill, “I am not an Obama supporter.”- Tanya

Marc doesn’t give a damn about what Bill O’ thinks or about proving to the world that he does not fear Bill O’. Marc has put Bill O’ in his place numerous times, just not in the way you would like. He has his own swag when dealing with Faux News. He is brave because he risks his career to stand up for what he believes. That means that he is above monetary gain. I don’t mean to be all up on Marc’s nuts, but I dig his swag. That’s why I start coming to the site, I saw him on tv and he blew me away with his delivery and I am VERY critical of people.

77. Tanya wrote:

Blaxx,

“Don’t you mufuckas got jobs? LOL. And they wondering why the economy is in the shitter, its cuz everybody bloggin while they supposed to be working. Tanya, damn near wrote 9 essays up there.”

LOL, I think you might be right! I have never blogged before, ever in my life, until I found this site, and I do not blog anywhere else. For some reason, the Barbershop has become slightly addicting for me.

I actually postponed a meeting to respond on that 100 comment post about the use of the word “nigga”. So if others are putting off work to blog, that may be an answer to the poor economy!!!

But as the Boss, and as someone who works 12-14 hour days, 6 days a week, taking a quick moment to share my voice is quite relaxing. So bear with me!

Logic,

“LOL! I can dig it. Tanya always writing 5 page essays. for each post.”

I can’t help it!!! I’m an Essayist at heart!!!

Besides, if I cut my comments to two words you guys would still complain, b/c there would be a whole lot of “F*** it” on here!

Just be happy I was on the road today, b/c I would of hit you with a few more 5 page-ers today!

78. Tanya wrote:

Charisma,

“That’s why I start coming to the site, I saw him on tv and he blew me away with his delivery and I am VERY critical of people.”

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto!!!!

When I saw Marc on TV I was ready to follow him wherever he went!!!

Now, I just feel like the smoke is starting to clear, and the pretty picture of Marc is starting to lose a little color. I want Marc to get his “colors” back, so I share my critiques, not to hurt his feelings, but to help him understand how some of his words and actions are viewed, even by some of his fans.

“Marc doesn’t give a damn about what Bill O’ thinks or about proving to the world that he does not fear Bill O’. Marc has put Bill O’ in his place numerous times, just not in the way you would like.”

This is not about what Bill thinks or how Marc puts Bill in his place.

This is about Marc saying one thing and doing another!

I am a Republican! A BLACK Republican! I’ve lost financially and socially b/c of my Christian Conservative views like you wouldn’t believe. (Secular progressives control my industry) But in any and every forum, to all people, I keep that same message of Christian Conservative ideals, b/c that’s what I believe is right.

However, I do tend to agree with the Dems when it comes to issues regarding the environment. BUT, I would never go on international TV and allow anyone to introduce me as a DEMOCRAT, just b/c I’m in agreement with left wing environmental issues, and speaking on that topic.

I just do not understand what is going on with Marc and this “I’m not an Obama supporter, but I play one on TV”.

79. Tanya wrote:

Samara,

“if you’re a critic be a critic. But dont be a critic on the blog but smile on TV and be a supporter. If that’s not modern day cooning then I dont know what is!”

I COSIGN THAT!!!

80. carisma wrote:

Tanya,

That’s where u and many others mess up. Mixing religion and politics. I am not Democrat nor Christian. I am pro black, forget all that other crap.

81. Tanya wrote:

Well carisma, I think that’s were many people (black, white, jew, gentile) mess up – NOT fully involving GOD in the life that HE gave us.

I’m a Christian, and I will scream it from the mountain tops. To hell with anyone who denounces it, or me for it.

I work with Jewish clients all day long, but I still keep Jesus 1st and I tell them Jesus is Lord without hesitation. If they rather work with someone who doesn’t have crosses and pictures of Jesus in their office, they can kick rocks!!! GOD will pay my bills. I’m good!

I mix my faith with my politics, my profession, my friendships, my relationships. My faith is consistent through all aspects of my life.

I live for GOD, not for man!

My integrity and “principled stances” can’t be bought, for any price.

So forgive me if I have a hard time relating to those that can be bought!

82. www.rayandsamara.com wrote:

PREACH!

83. Courtney Munnings wrote:

Marc,
some of your faithful readers are clearly HATERS who sit around fantasizing about if THEY got on tv!

You’re allowed to handle your JOB the way you want to. I’m sure you don’t go to their jobs and tell them how to behave.

And some are being silly because they somehow feel betrayed that you’re NOT an Obama supporter.

The personal attacks and criticisms are bold. In some many of the discussions I’ve read, they don’t even address the topic! They jump right on YOU!!!

If real friends are truly concerned that you CHANGED so much they should address you in PRIVATE. And if they don’t know you like that, then they should kick rocks! Some of these comments are downright hurtful.

If they hate the things you say/do/believe so much they should find another blog!

I know I don’t participate in any KKK forums online…

GET THAT MONEY, Dr. Hill! And spread your truth.
If these suckers got on TV, they’d probably be stuttering all over the place. Live YOUR dream! They could NOT fill your shoes.

You are ALL that. Not because I agree with every single word you say. But because you are DOING YOU’RE THING!!!

I am so proud of you,
Your favorite former student.

84. Logic wrote:

Marc,
If you really called Fox and asked them to refrain from calling you an Obama supporter, then I can only respect you even more than I did. One.

85. Cézsar wrote:

Marc’s Observation: “More importantly, your language and tone demonstrates a level of disrespect that was not warranted. …you responded with ridiculous accusations and unneeded hostility. …Furthermore, your use of phrases like “DAMN LIE” demonstrates A DISGUSTING LEVEL OF ARROGANCE.” – Marc

Here’s Proof of Marc’s Observation:

***All the following quotes are accurate and have been excerpted from 2 threads and multiple posts***

Tanya’s Enabling Rationalization: “I’m a Christian…You are a pathetic, deathly sick imp….GOD will pay my bills…I am a Republican! …I live for GOD…A BLACK Republican!…We are all the same size in GOD’s eyes”

^I believe you Tanya, so let’s see what Jesus would do…according to you…

Tanya’s Godly Expression : “YOU (and only you) will NEVER beat me at anything!!! I am way too far ahead of YOU (and only you)!!! YOU (and only you) ARE INDEED BENEATH ME!!!! ” – Tanya

Tanya’s God Rationalization: ” ‘Rise up, O God, and defend your cause; remember how FOOLS mock you all day long.’ – Psalm 74:22″ – Tanya
“Give heed to my reproof; behold I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you.” – Tanya

Tanya’s God Expression: “I’m going to express myself by constantly referring to you as a B*tch A** Whore A** Dumb A** Slur A** Fool! But don’t worry, these are all endearing terms and I love you so much I want you to hear me calling you these things all the time!!! OK?” – Tanya

“If you really wanted to get a job working for NASA and if you seriously attempted to apply for a position at NASA I would say to you: [insert name here], hate to BRAKE it to you (STOP you in your pursuits, your pursuits to get a job), but they only hire intelligent people!!!!…YOU’RE LOST IN LIFE!!!!!!!” – Tanya

^Yes Tanya, we know – God told you to do it, it is the way of the Lord yaddi yadda yadda. I’ll tell you this though, you aint doing a very good PR job for God on this blog, nope, you’re just making a mockery of Him. And saddest of all is that you actually expect to be taken seriously with this nonsense. You are a very vivid reminder of all that is wrong with religion.

But of course none of your behaviour matters in the real world because…you “live for God” right? Is this the type of warped thinking you are going to pass on to your children? I hope you are not reflective of the true mind-set of the Black American Church. Because if you are, then progress would indeed be a distant fantasy.

86. Blaxx wrote:

I actually postponed a meeting to respond on that 100 comment post about the use of the word “nigga”. So if others are putting off work to blog, that may be an answer to the poor economy!!!

You know this blog is too addictive when….

87. Clifton harrison wrote:

wow… Cezsar, you really went in with the researched quotes, and i applaud the effort, but sometime today, Tanya will write out a long ass response, cite another bible reference, call you gay, point out a small error in your spelling, and say that you are lost.

So with that, i hope she also reads Blaxx’s comment aand checks herself in at a Bloggers anonymous

88. carisma wrote:

Tanya,

Good if u are proud to be a Christian, but I been there done that. I don’t want to serve a religion that justifies oppressing and murdering people of negroid descent. I live for God as well, but not through modern Christian idealisms. I know there is a Supreme Being/Force that was created out of the darkness (black, the purest color in the color spectrum, the reason the solar system is black and most elements are black) and he then created me from his image. I think like a god, therefore, I am a god of the earth. I am not the Supreme Being, but I am his product. The Supreme Being created black men/women which gave birth to all other races. The Bible doesn’t get that deep on creation. All that Jesus stuff is hearsay.

89. Cézsar wrote:

LMAO! Clif you got me really laughing out loud man. You know Tanya well my friend, quite the predictable one lol!

Oh and Bloggers Anonymous sounds about right too hehehe. Ah life is good! Have a good weekend y’all.

90. Tanya wrote:

carisma,

You must be a 5%-er!!! Are you???

I totally agree with everything you said in #85, except the last two sentences.

“I don’t want to serve a religion that justifies oppressing and murdering people of negroid descent.”

What religion is that???

I know for an absolute FACT that my religion, the Episcopal religion, DOES NOT support, encourage or justify any type of oppression on anyone. And I have never heard of any other religion that does.

Foolishly evil people try to twist and turn things to fit their warped ways all the time. But that doesn’t make it true.

Look at The Fool in #82. He worked devilishly hard to try and spin my words, but anyone with sense and anyone who read the posts with my comments is probably thinking he is crazy, indeed a pathetic, deathly sick imp! B/c they understood the context in which the statements were made and they see how this fool tried to put a 180 on them.

For instance, during my discussion on expression with WYLTK, she stated that any and all expression was good in her eyes, especially if the intent behind it was good (to paraphrase). To counter her argument I stated:

“I’m going to express myself by constantly referring to you as a B*tch A** Whore A** Dumb A** Slur A** Fool! But don’t worry, these are all endearing terms and I love you so much I want you to hear me calling you these things all the time!!! OK?”

This however, was in no way a declaration of what I believed, or what I would actually call her. It was an exaggeration to show her how I viewed her position.

But hey, evil fools twist anything!

So, just b/c slave owners went to church, and tried to twist the Word to fit their deeds, doesn’t mean the church is evil and it doesn’t mean the Word supports slavery.

I have major qualms with the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church and how they operate, but that doesn’t mean I have beef with blacks or the church itself. I know the Baptist religion has great qualities, I know blacks are great people. But the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church is ridiculous, and I don’t blame that on the religion itself.

The Bible does get very deep on creation, and Jesus is TRUTH, not hearsay.

But unless you’re ready for a 50 pager, do some independent reading on the books Ezra, Genesis, Psalms, Romans, and Revelation – for Creation. Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1st and 2nd Peter – for Jesus.

You may be surprised how inline it is with the teachings of the 5%!!!

91. thatjonesboy wrote:

Tanya,

Out of curiosity what is your qualm with Non-Denominational Churches?

92. Tanya wrote:

thatjonesboy,

I don’t have a qualm with Non-Denominational Churches, as a church or a religion.

I have major qualms with BLACK Non-Denominational Churches, and how they operate.

I would love to share my thoughts with you, but are you SURE you want to go there?????

93. Cézsar wrote:

Well we know it’s not the religion itself she has qualms with: “But the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church is ridiculous, and I don’t blame that on the religion itself.”, so I’d be very interested to hear the answer to your question thatjonesboy.

P.S. “I have beef with blacks”, “I know blacks are great people”.

^Me thinks thou dost protest too much. I mean really, what Black person talks like that?

94. thatjonesboy wrote:

Okay so what is your qualm with Black Non Denominational Churches and I am positive that I want to go there. Please, share your thoughts.

95. Tanya wrote:

LMAO!!!

Oh my goodness!

Do you all see how EVIL FOOLS spin things?!?!?!?!? Let #90 serve as an example to one and all, how malicious spin is done!!!

#90 is the ultimate testament of a pathetic, deathly sick imp!!!

Here is what I said, and clearly I never said I have beef with black people!

We can only prayer for the sick!

“I have major qualms with the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church and how they operate, but that doesn’t mean I have beef with blacks or the church itself. I know the Baptist religion has great qualities, I know blacks are great people. But the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church is ridiculous, and I don’t blame that on the religion itself.”

96. Tanya wrote:

OK thatjonesboy!!!

But if this gets ugly, and people get their feelings hurt, don’t blame me!!!

97. thatjonesboy wrote:

So are you referring to Black Mega-Churches? How are you defining Black Non-Denominational Church? Are you referencing congregations that are mostly Black or congregations led by Black clergy?

98. thatjonesboy wrote:

I not here to cast blame. I am just really curious about the statement you made. I have very little to no experience with the Episcopalian faith so I can only assume that some of your thoughts are framed by that belief structure.

99. Tanya wrote:

thatjonesboy,

All very good questions and I will answer them all specifically.

I have a few things with work I need to finish up before 6pm, and this is one subject I do need and want to be sensitive with, and complete in how I address this, so give me till tonight to submit my response.

100. thatjonesboy wrote:

Tanya,

No rush. Take your time.

101. Cézsar wrote:

**RE-POST**

Well we know it’s not the religion itself she has qualms with: “But the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Church is ridiculous, and I don’t blame that on the religion itself.”, so I’d be very interested to hear the answer to your question thatjonesboy.

P.S. “that doesn’t mean I have beef with blacks”, “I know blacks are great people”.

^Me thinks thou dost protest too much. I mean really, what Black person talks like that?

102. Andre wrote:

Uh…

…and while we’re on topic, good job on the Factor Marc.

*crickets chirping*

103. jazzy wrote:

Tanya how can you say that “black people are great” when you said that most black people were degenerates during the post on Obama’s Father’s Day speech?

I listed your entire post below, which was in response to Regkam2, to show the whole context.

…..He [Obama] can kiss the Azz of Jews (AIPAC convention), but can’t say one good thing about Black people….Hmmmmm

Comment by Regkam2 — June 16, 2008 @ 11:34 am

What could he praise Black people for???

The majority of Black people are degenerate. The number of Blacks acting the damn fool totally out weighs the Black professionals.

Barack is not concerned with the few blacks he went to Harvard with, he’s concerned about the blacks in Harlem without.

The Blacks who don’t even have a G.E.D. The Blacks on welfare. The Blacks on drugs. The Blacks who don’t take care of their kids. These are the ones he wants to talk to. These are the ones he needs to talk to.

If he wants to elevate Blacks in this country as a “collective”, he has to focus on the ones who are lacking. He knows what he has to do to help his people and he will do it.

Regkam, I am very shocked that someone as intelligent and ethnically sound as you would say he was “trying to appease to white folks”.

Black people need criticism; they need to be called out.

Whites don’t want us to change and start competing with them for jobs and homes. They don’t want Barack to tell Black men stand up and be a man, be a good father. Whites slave masters were the ones that beat down the Black man emotionally and separated the Black man from his family to weaken us “collectively”. Whites know in order to keep all Blacks as a “collective” down they have to keep the Black man down.

That’s why it was very important for him to tell Black men get UP! (and not praise the few who think they’re standing when they’re really just kneeling, as opposed to laying down)

Comment by Tanya — June 16, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

104. carisma wrote:

Tanya,

Nope not a 5%er. I don’t label my beliefs. I believe whatever is true and makes sense.

105. Cézsar wrote:

“Tanya how can you say that “black people are great” when you said that most black people were degenerates during the post on Obama’s Father’s Day speech?” – jazzy

^Well spotted jazzy. This thread is becoming a perfect case study in Afro-American psychology; more specifically, the inner conflict that informs the thought forming layer of Tanya’s psyche. As funny as her loopy opinions are on the surface, they are perhaps indicative of something much more fundamental to Black progress in America?

I would really like to know more. Let the case study continue…

106. Miriam wrote:

Tanya,

I do not know you personally. There are things we are all secure and insecure about and sometimes we take it out on other people. I think that you are right to want to defend your views, that is your right, but you also have a responsibility to respect the views of others without making them feel like they are beneath you or that they are lying – which I happen to think Dr. Hill doesn’t think will benefit him at all (what reason does he have to lie- he did create this blog for the purpose of honest dialogue, as far as people’s knowledge will allow).

You don’t have to be confrontational to be controversial Tanya. You can challenge someone’s view,without gravely attacking them . But for others to listen to you, you should be respectful, and sometimes that means, agreeing to disagree. I am shocked by the level of disrespect that you have shown to others on this blog as a human being who would like to be treated with dignity and respect (that is what Jesus was about-utmost respect for those castigated by society- this is for those who believe in Christianity).

Let us share our views in an honest and open way and as much as we talk, let us listen.

107. Tanya wrote:

thatjonesboy,

“…are you referring to Black Mega-Churches?”

Yes, absolutely.

“How are you defining Black Non-Denominational Church?”

I define Black Baptist/Non-Denominational churches as those that are heavily congregated with black people, but are mainly signified by black clergy. I think most people are familiar with the Baptist religion. The Non-Denominational church is, as far as I’m aware, a relatively new branch of Christianity, which is very similar, if not practically identical to the Baptist church. Most “mega churches” place themselves under this Non-Denominational sect.

“Are you referencing congregations that are mostly Black or congregations led by Black clergy?”

When I express my dismay with Black Churches, I am referring specifically to Baptist and Non-Denominational churches that are led by black clergy. It is the black clergy that I take major issue with and have great qualms with. It is the clergy that have shaped the Baptist/Non-Denominational churches into the sacrilegious repertory production it has become in the black community.

“I have very little to no experience with the Episcopalian faith so I can only assume that some of your thoughts are framed by that belief structure.”

Well, yes, my entire life is framed by the belief structure of the Episcopal faith, but there is nothing specifically Episcopal that causes my gripe with the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational churches.

Episcopalians are the greatest people in the world! (j/k, kind of!!! ) There are so many wonderful things I could tell you about the Episcopal Church, but in the interest of time, and with focus on the question at hand, I will sum it up in the words of Bishop N. T. Wright, an Episcopal priest, “If it’s true, Episcopalians believe it.” (Bishop Wright is a well know, very famous, highly regarded Episcopal priest who gives speeches and homilies around the world and often gives TV interviews and has written several books. He is exceedingly intelligent and exceedingly spiritual, and my homie!)

I was born, baptized, confirmed, and communed in the Episcopal Church, and I do believe that the Episcopal religion is the most perfect religion on earth, and that is why I am a member. (If you can’t say that your religion is the most perfect on earth then why are you a member???)

However, I do acknowledge that there are problems within the modern day Episcopal Church. For instance, the fairly recent acceptance of gay and woman priests in the Episcopal Church boils my blood like I can’t even tell you!!! But I digress…

The fact of the matter is that I understand religion is a human relativity and humans fall short of the Glory. But in my humble (maybe not so humble) opinion, the Baptist/Non-Denominational Church is the most sacrilegious of all Christianity, and likely, of all religions. And here’s why…..

Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches do not have proper alters.

Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches do not offer communion every Sabbath.

Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches do not engage in the serene reverence.

Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches do not engage in ritual kneeling.

Inter alia…

All of which, all other Christian denominations do, and all of which the Bible requires of all Christians.

Further…

I know all of you are well aware of Rev. Wright, (not to be confused with Bishop Wright), Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his sermon/sermon style at recent controversy. Well, I absolutely agree with Rev. Wright and everything he said, however, I am absolutely against the disgusting and deplorable way he delivered his message – In church, on the podium/pulpit, on Sunday morning.

This is the norm for black Baptist/Non-Denominational clergy. They give non spiritual, non GOD Jesus focused verbiage from their “stage” on Sunday morning. They discuss politics and social injustices from the pulpit. This is absolutely wrong. The pulpit is strictly reserved for the Gospel, and Biblical, GOD Jesus teachings.

Do I think Rev. Wright and others should address political and social issues with their congregations? – Absolutely. But it needs to be done in the Church rec-room during the week, not pedantically integrated as a sermon on Sunday morning. That is sacrilegious. (This is my greatest qualm)

Black Clergy in the Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches, move their focus from GOD and the Gospel to selfish, self-promoting secular matters. These clergy are generally egotistical, material driven, wannabe public servants. They use GOD and the Bible to make money, not spread salvation. For a reason unbeknownst to me, the Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches are more easily infiltrated by imposters, who use laying of the hands and power of the tongue as magic tricks that generate jewelry/wealth, more so than any other religion.

When you walk into these “mega-churches” you see gold trimmings and grandiose architecture, but no more than 1 Cross, and no pictures of Jesus. Not to mention that literally anyone can become the head of these churches, and they name the church anything they want without biblical significance. (I could list literally hundreds of verses against all this, but I too tired right now.)

The prominent figure in these churches is not GOD Jesus, it’s whoever drives the pimped out Cadillac into the Reserved Rev. parking spot.

“The message of many churches has been co-opted by American capitalism,” said the Rev. Frederick Haynes III of the Friendship-West Baptist Church in South Dallas. “A megachurch should not just be known for the traffic jam it creates on Sunday, but for doing something more in the community.”

And if that isn’t enough, all the yelling and screaming, jumping, running and falling out, is NOT of GOD. It is not spirituality; it is showmanship, wicked showmanship!

There is a set example for the form and function of the church, and the Black/Non-Denominational Church just doesn’t seem to fit it. – Based on the Bible.

But of course, this does NOT include ALL Black Baptist/Non-Denominational Churches. There are some very good ones, with alters and everything!!! I just think far too many of them have strayed from GOD and the principles and high respect of GOD and have become black country clubs/social groups, so to speak instead of reverent houses of the Lord.

108. Miriam wrote:

Cezar,

I think that your attacks on Tanya, are just as unwarranted, but I try to both of you, even though I may disagree with what someone is saying. We do not always have to be on the defensive, but we can quietly and maturely disagree.

109. Baffled wrote:

wow, correct me if I am wrong but this is Dr. Marc Lamont Hill’s blog right? After reading this thread I am of the mind that Tanya needs to get her own blog. Furthermore the Jesus that I serve would say “love your neighbor as yourself” and I’m not feeling any love up in here (sigh). Really this is why black folks can not collectively get ahead. We are so divided amongst ourselves that it truly saddens me… Keep doing u Marc. I lurk in the shop not because I always agree with u but because I always leave with another challenging perspective or outlook on issues. I respect that you take a stance and keep it unlike many people. Do not be discouraged my brother, keep movin’.

110. Miriam wrote:

*I try to listen” to both of you

111. Tanya wrote:

jazzy,

Thanks for quoting me! I wholeheartedly believe what I stated there and I’m glad it was posted again b/c I’m sure someone new will read it here that didn’t see it on the original post and will gain something from it.

Word to the wise:

You and anyone else will be extremely hard pressed to find contradictions in any of my statements. From the moment I began to speak, my father taught me to never say anything unless I am prepared to have it repeated. Before I could even properly pronounce my full name, it was embedded in the deepest fibers of my being to never say anything I am not prepared to have repeated.

Are there black degenerates? – Absolutely!

What is a degenerate in my opinion? – As I stated, The Blacks who don’t even have a G.E.D. The Blacks on welfare. The Blacks on drugs. The Blacks who don’t take care of their kids.

Do I think ALL black people are degenerates? – Of course not! I’m black, my family and friends are black! I think highly of myself, family, friends, and many other great black people.

Do I think black degenerates are great people? – Absolutely! B/c they are BLACK!!! As I’ve stated a few times on this blog, I believe that the black man is the superior being. I believe that black genes and DNA is stronger and superior to the genes and DNA of any other race. Adam and Eve were BLACK, Jesus was BLACK! BLACK is great!

There are definitely black people who act degenerate, and therefore, for all intense purposes, are indeed degenerate, but they still have those GREAT BLACK genes and DNA.

If a man, any man, doesn’t take care of his children, I will assert that he is NOT a man! But that doesn’t mean he is actually a woman. That doesn’t mean he literally lacks male genitalia, that doesn’t mean is his not physically male.

I’m a little disappointed that I had to explain this. I have made more than enough statements on here for anyone with mature comprehension to know that I love black people and think black people, my people, are great; but detest the current modern day lifestyle far too many black people have employed. I’ve said on this blog before, I am disgusted with the state of black people b/c I know the Kings and Queens we once were.

As Audre Lorde has said, and as Marc has recently quoted:

“I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.”

I do honestly believe that only one person (The Fool) on here that has intentionally and unsuccessfully tried to “bruise” my words. I think you (jazzy), and many others may have just simply misunderstood.

If you misunderstand something I have said, please question me, please challenge me! I welcome it. And I want to be clear.

So thanks again for quoting me, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify this.

112. Cézsar wrote:

Miriam, I haven’t attacked Tanya once. She on the other hand has attacked damn near everybody on this blog. I’m just holding up a mirror to her. Her style of expression demands that. She, demands that. I suppose you think Marc also attacked her for pointing out her behaviour to her?

113. thatjonesboy wrote:

Tanya,

Thank you for your response. You make some very broad generalizations. In my humble opinion the qualms you stated are not unique to the the Black Non-Denominational/Mega Church. I also think you stated that their are issues you are at odds with within your church as well. From your post I don’t think we have the same view or relationship to God, but then again how could we? A relationship is personal. Anyway I disagree with some points you made, but not enough to argue them. I do believe the vices you listed are not specific to the Black clergy. Those are human issues and are reflected in all the branches of the church. I myself believe that there is only one true church. Denominations mean very little to me. Man’s opinion means very little. There’s a lot to your post that I find strange being that Biblically its demonstrated, allowed and commanded in the Old and New Testament.

114. thatjonesboy wrote:

Social issues must be addressed from the pulpit. Christ himself addressed the social issues of His day in sermons/sermon style during His teachings to the people. Social justice and Biblical teaching can not be separated, but this might be were our viewpoints disagree. This is not my opinion. This is what I gather from Scripture.

115. thatjonesboy wrote:

Tanya,

I have another question for you, again out of curiosity. How would one have a picture of Jesus in the sanctuary given that no one knows what he looks like or do you mean as a symbolic gesture?

116. Tanya wrote:

carisma,

“Nope not a 5%er. I don’t label my beliefs. I believe whatever is true and makes sense.”

Well you may not label yourself, but I bet you know a 5%er, and I bet you have been exposed to 5% teachings?!?!?!? So many of your comments seem to echo their principles. I label myself a Christian, an Episcopalian, and NOT a 5%er, but I believe pretty much all of the 5% teachings.

As I mentioned above, Bishop N. T. Wright, an Episcopal priest and many other theological scholars have described the Episcopal Church as, “If it’s true, Episcopalians believe it.”

So you know I’m going to suggest you look into the Episcopal faith!!!

117. Tanya wrote:

Miriam,

“There are things we are all secure and insecure about and sometimes we take it out on other people.”

That is very true. But it does not in any regard refer to me! I have absolutely NO insecurities. I have GOD! I am too close to GOD to be insecure about anything. I know the sun rises everyday, FOR ME! I know the birds chirp everyday, FOR ME! I know the ocean hits the shore, FOR ME! I know that the trees bear fruit, FOR ME! If more people knew, understood, and believed this, any insecurity they have would rid them faster than the speed of light!

Further, I have nothing to take out on anyone on this blog! I don’t even know anyone on this blog! Plus I live a great life and I am happy and abundantly blessed in all aspects of my life!!!

I am not, however, happy with how some people live their lives and I am not happy with certain things in this world, and those things I speak on.

I am very secure in what I believe is right, and I do have the courage and conviction to plainly and blatantly state what it is I believe, regardless of what others might think of it or me. I don’t consider any of my positions controversial. I consider them right! But I do understand and accept that others may view them as controversial. And I do respect the opinions of others, but I have no responsibility if they feel beneath me in anyway b/c of my opinions or how I state my opinions.

If I say Jesus is Lord, that might hurt someone’s feelings and make them feel that their faith is beneath mine. If I say the sun is orange, that might hurt someone’s feelings and make them feel beneath me. I can’t concern myself with the ultra-sensitivity of others. I can only concern myself with the truth.

I have only attacked 2 people on this blog – The Fool and Cliff. I have disagreed with others on here and have blatantly expressed so, but I have NOT attacked anyone else.

I honestly believe that The Fool is a wicked malicious fool, and I honestly believe Cliff is lost. I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I agree with them, or try to sugar-coat my sentiments.

I don’t put sugar on shit and try to feed it to people. I don’t try to pass vomit off as soup. If I think you are an idiot, and you have provoked such a vivid response, well then, you’ll get it.

Many people on here have cursed at me and have been crude, and I don’t dwell on it or cry about it, and I never cursed back at them. I just civilly state my position. (Take a look at Chgosista’s profanity and attacks towards me, and take a look as my civil responses to her.)

But The Fool and Cliff provoked my responses to them, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Again, I have not attacked anyone else in the Barbershop, but if you think I have, I challenge you to show me specifically where and how!!! Show me, please.

In regards to Marc:

To be clear:

I have NOT attacked Marc, here, now, or ever!!!

I did not talk about his mother, or bring up any personal, embarrassing or degrading moments. I never called him any names. I just simply questioned and challenged the man. I just simply informed the man that I truly believe he lied. If Marc can’t take this from me (a Marc advocate) without getting his panties in a bunch, he’s going to have a hard time making it pass commentator, and dealing with the enemy of his cause.

I just can’t beat around the bush. I’m not that creative and I don’t have the time to waste. If I think he lied, I’m going to tell him straight out. I’m not going to try and find some kindergarten, puppy and rainbow way to tell him I think I might not believe him. I’m going to tell him straight up, I think that’s a damn lie and here’s why!

Why would March lie??? I don’t know! Why did Rick Ross lie about being a CO???

Marc said he didn’t see the commercial, I don’t believe that for a moment. Could I be wrong, possibly? But I don’t think so. I also think it is a lie when Marc said he contacted the producers. I also think it is a lie when Marc says it is “not a small thing to do”, in regards to getting in touch with the producers.

All types of nobody average Joes get in contact with the producers easy as pie. Marc, the FOX News Contributor, a FOX colleague, can’t get in touch with his co-workers or thinks it’s not a “small thing to do”??? I don’t buy it. Sorry!

Do I respect Marc? – YES

Do I think Marc is a good person? – YES

Do I think Marc lied on here? – YES

But that doesn’t constitute an attack on Marc!

I have $100 bucks that says they will refer to Marc as an Obama Supporter again!

That’s how I honestly feel, and I’m not going to avert the truth to spear his, or anyone else’s feelings!

If you think I “gravely attacked” Marc, that’s you’re opinion; and I respect it. I just know you can’t empirically or factually substantiate it.

118. jazzy wrote:

Tanya,
I wholeheartedly disagree with your belief in Black superiority and I still believe it conflicts with your belief about most Blacks being degenerates, but I do appericate you taking the the time to respond to my post in a civil manner.

119. Tanya wrote:

PS – Marc, I find it shallow and pedantic that you would “snitch” on Barack! The focus was on you. We were discussing what you did, or did not do. Why would you say, “hey look at Barack, he did it too!!!”? (#67)

BTW – I don’t see how Barack’s message to the Palestinians was different, opposite or diabolical from his message to the Jews! Anyone care to explain it to me? Seriously, I didn’t see it.

120. Tanya wrote:

jazzy,

Do you have any siblings???

If you have a brother or sister, I am sure they have, at some point, done something you thought was incredibly stupid. And you might have shared with one of your friends, “Damn, my brother/sister is so stupid”.

You might have truly believed that your brother or sister really did an insanely stupid thing, and you might truly believed that they were indeed stupid to do it.

But you can still say, “Damn, my brother/sister is stupid”, and know in your heart that they have intelligence, and that they are a good and sensible person, b/c you know where they come from, the same parents/family as you.

This is how I feel about black people. They do some degenerate ish, and I speak on it, but I still know in my heart that they are powerful great people, b/c I know where they come from!

There is nothing conflicting about that!

121. Cézsar wrote:

“You and anyone else will be extremely hard pressed to find contradictions in any of my statements.” – Tanya

^Um…ok…let’s give it a go…

“Get use to that street corner and those colors little Nigger! (and I mean that in a fully derogatory way)” – Tanya

BUT

“I love black people” – Tanya

“This is why ‘YOU PEOPLE’ are just going to spend the rest of your lives as the ‘have nots’ in the ghettoes!” – Tanya

BUT

“I know blacks are great people” – Tanya

AND

“Episcopalians are the greatest people in the world!” – Tanya

“I believe that the black man is the superior being.”

BUT

“The problem is…the lack of morals and ethics in the black community. Period, full stop!” – Tanya

“What could he [Barack] praise Black people for??? The majority of Black people are degenerate.” – Tanya

Will the real Tanya please stand up! Your “Black Saviour” routine is making me nauseous. Your style suffocates your message, and this is where you’re failing.

This whole moral arbiter role you are trying to play is not as easy it first appears is it? Many great men & women have come before you, tried and failed. And this is what you are learning here on this blog.

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.” – Albert Einstein

122. Miriam wrote:

Tanya,

When you say that you believe you are right, do you mean all the time? You say you stand by your convictions, you are entitled to that, but your being right (in your view) does not make other people wrong. People have different world-views, ideologies, and realities based on what they have experienced. It is fine to challenge them, but know that while you may have access to knowledge that other people don’t have, they may have access to knowledge that you don’t have.

I say this to point out that you do not OWN the realm of the unknown- there is a lot out there waiting to be found out- and most of the time the people who find out are those who are willing to learn,to be patient, to hold their tongues (sometimes) and most importantly to listen.

I believe that we all have insecurities- that does not make us degenerate by the way- it just means that we are susceptible to being moulded from the person we are to the person we want to be- that is what perfection is- the ability to know our imperfections, and then to strive for better- which often means learning from others. Saying ‘degenerate blacks’ is nothing short of very disrespectful and insensitive. In fact, it means that you are comparing one person to another with no personal or situational context (it is very dangerous, Tanya, sth Toni Morrison warns against in many of her novels).

Just labeling something the “truth” doesn’t make it so, in fact you might be gravely wrong- I might be wrong about my thoughts on Dr. Hill, but at least you must be willing to give benefit of the doubt, when you have no reason to do otherwise. Are you are willing to take that risk (of saying your right when you might be wrong)just to validate your “superior” knowledge? Because that is what you are saying when you are not willing to concede- in public- that you do not know what happened when Dr. Hill was at that studio.

I can’t judge you. I’m sure there is a lot that you are to be proud of. You seem like a fun-loving person. No one is perfect however, and I think that God (in my own view) has something in store for everyone, no matter what path they have chosen, we are all God’s children, and he first requires that we love one another UNCONDITIONALLY (that is what Christ did, even those who hurt him and then kissed his cheek).

So, they might refer to Dr. Hill as an Obama supporter. That does not mean that he asked them to. People (especially in the media) are very stubborn (hint: Bil O’Reilly- and still Dr. Hill treats him with respect that he is due, because he is human) especially when they feel you are not entitled to a sense of authority that they have been given. What does constitute an attack on Dr. Hill is calling him a liar when you were not there Tanya (I know you know you are not God). What does constitute an attack is not being open to the views of others and using hurt, frustration or the many questions that you have (which I think are good)as an excuse for provocation.

Does the Word also teach that for every response there is an equal and opposite reaction? Sure there are people that will attack us in life, does that mean we should feed them what they give us- that makes you no different than them.

I say all of this, because I respect opinionated dialogue, and I think you have contributed a lot to conversations, but you have to be able to self-reflect- you should at least hold yourself to that measure. This goes for a lot of people (including myself). I am not targeting you. I also have made mistakes that hurt others. I just felt hurt by some of your comments (even though they weren’t directed at me.

123. Tanya wrote:

thatjonesboy,

“In my humble opinion the qualms you stated are not unique to the the Black Non-Denominational/Mega Church.”

I know they are not unique to the Black Church, but I think they are outrageously overwhelming and far more intense in the BC than any other Church.

“Man’s opinion means very little.”

Fully agreed!

“There’s a lot to your post that I find strange being that Biblically its demonstrated, allowed and commanded in the Old and New Testament.”

How so???

“Social issues must be addressed from the pulpit. Christ himself addressed the social issues of His day in sermons/sermon style during His teachings to the people. Social justice and Biblical teaching can not be separated…”

False!

Social issues ought not be addressed from the pulpit. Christ did NOT address social issues in sermons or from the “pulpit”. (I’ll quote the scriptures later. I’m to lazy now to look it up and type it.)

“How would one have a picture of Jesus in the sanctuary given that no one knows what he looks like or do you mean as a symbolic gesture?”

The Bible describes exactly what Jesus looked like! There are verses that describe Jesus’ ancestors and that describe Jesus specifically. (I don’t have these verses memorized, and again, I am too lazy to go get my Bible right now. But I do remember the scripture stating his complexion, features, hair, etc.)

Again, the most significant turn off, for me, is that the BC does NOT have an alter, and Jesus said, several times in the Bible, that the alter is the Church, no Church of his is without an alter. And then, the respect for that alter, and not discussing politics or social issues from that alter, in the Church sanctuary.

I’ll get back to you on Monday with the verses. I’m done for right now, you guys wore me out!!!

I’ll holla on Mon!!!

124. Miriam wrote:

Tanya,

I have a question for you- Economists say that at any given point in time, the economy cannot achieve full employment because of the way capitalism and competitive economy works. Some people will be unemployed (5%). What do you think should happen to the people who end up in this bracket? (Most people on welfare in the U.S. are single parent white mothers).

125. Tanya wrote:

Miriam,

I just read your 1st paragraph! I can’t read any more right now, I want to take a nap. I promise I will read your whole post and respond later in the weekend or Monday.

But quickly in response to your 1st paragraph I’ll say:

A wise man knows that he knows nothing at all! (My dad beat that in my head from day 1 too)

126. Miriam wrote:

Wow, Christ did not address social issues from the pulpit?! are you kidding? have you heard his parables? (his pulpit was everywhere he went). You should carefully read his sermons. Anything that has to do with how to treat others and how to live in society addresses social issues, Tanya.

127. Miriam wrote:

but you don’t seem to display that you know you don’t know…lol

128. thatjonesboy wrote:

Tanya,

Read those Scriptures because in mine Jesus does comment on providing for the needy(Matt. 6:1-4), prejudice (the woman at the well), paying taxes (at the time to Ceasar) , divorce (among believers) and the treatment of children. These are all social issues. They can’t be separated from the actuality of living life. The social issues of our time are merely the lack of expressed genuine love and Jesus spoke directly to that. In fact commanding us to love one another above all else. Get back to me with the verses that support your statements. I am very interested in reading them. Mon.

129. Miriam wrote:

Carisma,

I appreciate your comment about religion and politics and how they get mixed up. However, I’m curious to know if you feel like they can ever be separated?

After all, politics is a way of being in the world, ideology, and a way of making sense of our individual, communal, and competing realities. That is what religion appears to be as well, especially when we extend the knowledge of religion to include other global religions besides Christianity, Islam, Judaism (whether “minority”: representative of a small group of religions, or not).

I personally don’t feel as though it is religion and politics that collides (in fact, religion under the banner of “righteousness” has defended the politics of war, exploitation, harm, and similarly, politics has defended the use of religion to create factions (every election season…lol).

Rather, what gets mixed up are people’s motives and thoughts within societal (permeating) ideologies and in their attempt to make sense of individual, communal, and competing realities. If love is a motive, then there is a willingness to see ourselves in others and our religious practice (because I myself don’t believe in monolithic religions, I think as much as people are communal is worship, they are individual in their relationship or walk with God or whomever they humble themselves to) and our politics exudes that love. If the motive is retaliation born of pain/hurt or anger or dislike then our politics and our religion speaks that language and casts out love.

130. Tanya wrote:

Ok, I’m back!!!

Sorry I didn’t respond immediately on here, but I could barely keep my eyes open when I was typing in this thread on Sat.

But I’m fully rested now and ready to roll; so here we go…

131. Cézsar wrote:

Episcopal Church to apologize for slavery
08/09/2008
By Tim Murphy, Religion News Service
USA Today

Continuing its efforts to address a practice some members call “a stain on the church,” the Episcopal Church will hold a “Day of Repentance” to publicly apologize for its involvement in the slave trade.

Check link for more – http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-08-08-episcopal-slavery_N.htm

Hmmmm.