First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Barack Obama!!!
2703 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 11/9/08 , edited 11/9/08

makix wrote:


gratefuldead68 wrote:

I'll support him now that he's been elected, but I didn't vote for him. I think he's going to play "Robin Hood" and unfairly tax citizens who work hard to earn a living, only to turn around and give it to people who "are less fortunate" aka those who just collect welfare checks. His policies discourage hard work, which is just stupid. Too much socialism for my taste...

Too many people couldn't look past the "my president is black" and "change", without realizing that he really might fuck the country over. Or at least the hard-working middle class.


Unfairly tax "citizens" who "work hard" for a living, aka the wealthy capitalists, when they pretty much exploit minimum wages and ultimately control the flow of the economy and market without consideration to the needs of the people. Sure, capitalists making other people suffer and go into poverty is completely fine, but when they're taxed to help spread out the wealth to the people who need it, oh no no, that's just "socialism".

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Twenty percent of the USA population controls 91% of the USA's wealth. To be more exact, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth. Next 4% controls 28% of the wealth. Next 5% of the population controls 12% of the wealth. Next 10% controls 11% of the wealth.

The other eighty percent of the USA population controls 9% of the USA's wealth.



So in a room of 100 people and a single pie, one person get 40% of the pie. The other 19 people take 51% of the the pie. Then the remaining 80 people are forced to share 9% of the pie.

Once you are finished reading about the slander of Obama being a "socialist" and other libeling, you tell me where the so called "middle" class is because I'm having a hard time telling whether it even exists.





Riiiight, Cause everyone who's wealthy is a capitalist who exploits minimum wage right? Pfft, what a joke.

Taxing high income earners who sacrifice their time with their family to provide you people with goods and services only to be told they have to be taxed to fund those deadbeats who can't even be bothered to get off their arse at work, even for 20hours a week and a petrol station is fair? Riight, everything is not so black and white, if anything there are more grey areas than either.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/08 , edited 11/10/08

mokney wrote:


makix wrote:


gratefuldead68 wrote:

I'll support him now that he's been elected, but I didn't vote for him. I think he's going to play "Robin Hood" and unfairly tax citizens who work hard to earn a living, only to turn around and give it to people who "are less fortunate" aka those who just collect welfare checks. His policies discourage hard work, which is just stupid. Too much socialism for my taste...

Too many people couldn't look past the "my president is black" and "change", without realizing that he really might fuck the country over. Or at least the hard-working middle class.


Unfairly tax "citizens" who "work hard" for a living, aka the wealthy capitalists, when they pretty much exploit minimum wages and ultimately control the flow of the economy and market without consideration to the needs of the people. Sure, capitalists making other people suffer and go into poverty is completely fine, but when they're taxed to help spread out the wealth to the people who need it, oh no no, that's just "socialism".

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Twenty percent of the USA population controls 91% of the USA's wealth. To be more exact, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth. Next 4% controls 28% of the wealth. Next 5% of the population controls 12% of the wealth. Next 10% controls 11% of the wealth.

The other eighty percent of the USA population controls 9% of the USA's wealth.



So in a room of 100 people and a single pie, one person get 40% of the pie. The other 19 people take 51% of the the pie. Then the remaining 80 people are forced to share 9% of the pie.

Once you are finished reading about the slander of Obama being a "socialist" and other libeling, you tell me where the so called "middle" class is because I'm having a hard time telling whether it even exists.





Riiiight, Cause everyone who's wealthy is a capitalist who exploits minimum wage right? Pfft, what a joke.

Taxing high income earners who sacrifice their time with their family to provide you people with goods and services only to be told they have to be taxed to fund those deadbeats who can't even be bothered to get off their arse at work, even for 20hours a week and a petrol station is fair? Riight, everything is not so black and white, if anything there are more grey areas than either.


Go learn about how the economy works before you attempt to pathetically ridicule me.

Why is a minimum wage called a minimum wage? Why does it exist? The sole existence of minimum wage is to ensure that companies cannot exploit its workers with cheap labor for the intent of greater profits. The minimum wage is set (which is atm too low) so that people can "live". However, economist critics claim that the minimum wage isn't keeping on par with the inflation level and the raising costs of living. So sure, the minimum wage may go up 25 cents once in a while. However if the inflation index is at 50 cents, you're still behind by 25 cents.

Also, why do capitalists engage in so much production outside of the United States? It's pretty damn obvious it's because the cost of labor is abundantly cheaper than that of the United States. Even though there are people in our country that need jobs, we continue to use China or other countries to get the maximum profit possible. Not all unemployed workers are "lazy asses" as you think. If you know anything about the market, you would know how bad the USA economy is at the moment.

Tax high income "earners" who "sacrifice" their time with their family to provide people with goods? Don't make me laugh. The capitalist class are labeled as people who "own the means of production". In other words, the wealthy don't directly engage in any direct production of their products. In fact, most of the wealthy spend most of their time managing their wealth rather than directly engaging in production. So who does most of the production? That's right, the so called "middle" class. Depending on the company they work for, their general income salary is much smaller than the profit margin. In other words, for every 1$ you work, the capitalist wealthy may be making 5-7$ dollars. Yes, that's how capitalism works and it can work if there we stop viewing USA as a closed market. We engage in so much outside production that the wealthy are becoming rich at a very rapid rate while the working class are becoming poorer as the result.

Here's a quick diagram:
CEO pays China 2$ to make product A.
Product A is made in China and redistributed to USA.
Product A in USA is then bought for 6$. The profit margin is 4$ for the CEO.
Now where is this 4$ used? Probably 1$ is spent on the the USA market while the 3$ is then again spent on outside investments.

At the same time, CEO pays USA worker 4$ to work.
Profit margin for the CEO from USA worker is 6$.
This 6$ is then spent to buy products which the CEO made and the money goes directly back to them.
The money which the CEO makes from the USA worker is then spent on China or another foreign stock investment.

Tell me, is this a fair flow of money?

BTW, that's excluding all the government subsidies and bailout and the bank investments on these companies which are largely funded by the general people through taxes and bank deposits.



The force of propaganda and stupidity are strong in you young padawan. Now shut up and go read a real book (No that does not include your school textbook) on how our economy and how the global economy works.


2703 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 11/10/08

makix wrote:


mokney wrote:


makix wrote:


gratefuldead68 wrote:

I'll support him now that he's been elected, but I didn't vote for him. I think he's going to play "Robin Hood" and unfairly tax citizens who work hard to earn a living, only to turn around and give it to people who "are less fortunate" aka those who just collect welfare checks. His policies discourage hard work, which is just stupid. Too much socialism for my taste...

Too many people couldn't look past the "my president is black" and "change", without realizing that he really might fuck the country over. Or at least the hard-working middle class.


Unfairly tax "citizens" who "work hard" for a living, aka the wealthy capitalists, when they pretty much exploit minimum wages and ultimately control the flow of the economy and market without consideration to the needs of the people. Sure, capitalists making other people suffer and go into poverty is completely fine, but when they're taxed to help spread out the wealth to the people who need it, oh no no, that's just "socialism".

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Twenty percent of the USA population controls 91% of the USA's wealth. To be more exact, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth. Next 4% controls 28% of the wealth. Next 5% of the population controls 12% of the wealth. Next 10% controls 11% of the wealth.

The other eighty percent of the USA population controls 9% of the USA's wealth.



So in a room of 100 people and a single pie, one person get 40% of the pie. The other 19 people take 51% of the the pie. Then the remaining 80 people are forced to share 9% of the pie.

Once you are finished reading about the slander of Obama being a "socialist" and other libeling, you tell me where the so called "middle" class is because I'm having a hard time telling whether it even exists.





Riiiight, Cause everyone who's wealthy is a capitalist who exploits minimum wage right? Pfft, what a joke.

Taxing high income earners who sacrifice their time with their family to provide you people with goods and services only to be told they have to be taxed to fund those deadbeats who can't even be bothered to get off their arse at work, even for 20hours a week and a petrol station is fair? Riight, everything is not so black and white, if anything there are more grey areas than either.


Go learn about how the economy works before you attempt to pathetically ridicule me.

Why is a minimum wage called a minimum wage? Why does it exist? The sole existence of minimum wage is to ensure that companies cannot exploit its workers with cheap labor for the intent of greater profits. The minimum wage is set (which is atm too low) so that people can "live". However, economist critics claim that the minimum wage isn't keeping on par with the inflation level and the raising costs of living. So sure, the minimum wage may go up 25 cents once in a while. However if the inflation index is at 50 cents, you're still behind by 25 cents.

Also, why do capitalists engage in so much production outside of the United States? It's pretty damn obvious it's because the cost of labor is abundantly cheaper than that of the United States. Even though there are people in our country that need jobs, we continue to use China or other countries to get the maximum profit possible. Not all unemployed workers are "lazy asses" as you think. If you know anything about the market, you would know how bad the USA economy is at the moment.

Tax high income "earners" who "sacrifice" their time with their family to provide people with goods? Don't make me laugh. The capitalist class are labeled as people who "own the means of production". In other words, the wealthy don't directly engage in any direct production of their products. In fact, most of the wealthy spend most of their time managing their wealth rather than directly engaging in production. So who does most of the production? That's right, the so called "middle" class. Depending on the company they work for, their general income salary is much smaller than the profit margin. In other words, for every 1$ you work, the capitalist wealthy may be making 5-7$ dollars. Yes, that's how capitalism works and it can work if there we stop viewing USA as a closed market. We engage in so much outside production that the wealthy are becoming rich at a very rapid rate while the working class are becoming poorer as the result.

Here's a quick diagram:
CEO pays China 2$ to make product A.
Product A is made in China and redistributed to USA.
Product A in USA is then bought for 6$. The profit margin is 4$ for the CEO.
Now where is this 4$ used? Probably 1$ is spent on the the USA market while the 3$ is then again spent on outside investments.

At the same time, CEO pays USA worker 4$ to work.
Profit margin for the CEO from USA worker is 6$.
This 6$ is then spent to buy products which the CEO made and the money goes directly back to them.
The money which the CEO makes from the USA worker is then spent on China or another foreign stock investment.

Tell me, is this a fair flow of money?

BTW, that's excluding all the government subsidies and bailout and the bank investments on these companies which are largely funded by the general people through taxes and bank deposits.



The force of propaganda and stupidity are strong in you young padawan. Now shut up and go read a real book (No that does not include your school textbook) on how our economy and how the global economy works.




Before you go searching the internet to learn about economy, how about you go and meet everyone of those so called wealthy people huh? Do you know their business practices? Because you read it on the net does NOT make it true for everyone. Does every company engage in off shore production? Can you be sure? No? Shut up before you make such ill informed comments. Until you have met every single person in the "wealthy" category then your opinion is mute.
2703 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 11/10/08

ot all unemployed workers are "lazy asses" as you think. If you know anything about the market, you would know how bad the USA economy is at the moment.


Yeah, Because banks lend out money and because people WILLINGLY take out money they know they can't pay back. It's a two way street.
Posted 11/10/08
I think Barack Obama and McCain had a lot of similar views and some of their differences were minor. I don't think Obama will change much at all and I wish Ron Paul would have won the election.
Posted 11/10/08

iamjoanne wrote:

i supported obama mainly because he was different from all the other presidents we had. hes young, black, and really knows how to get the excitement of change going in his speeches. i dont believe that he can immediately bring change to america. nobody in the world could do that. eventually change will come over the years. you just gotta be patient :}


He's not that young, he is black, and he can speak well, doesn't mean he can make a good president. You didn't support him due to his views obviously and neither did most, most likely. Most voted for him because he's black, that's my guess.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/08 , edited 11/10/08

mokney wrote:


makix wrote:


mokney wrote:


makix wrote:


gratefuldead68 wrote:

I'll support him now that he's been elected, but I didn't vote for him. I think he's going to play "Robin Hood" and unfairly tax citizens who work hard to earn a living, only to turn around and give it to people who "are less fortunate" aka those who just collect welfare checks. His policies discourage hard work, which is just stupid. Too much socialism for my taste...

Too many people couldn't look past the "my president is black" and "change", without realizing that he really might fuck the country over. Or at least the hard-working middle class.


Unfairly tax "citizens" who "work hard" for a living, aka the wealthy capitalists, when they pretty much exploit minimum wages and ultimately control the flow of the economy and market without consideration to the needs of the people. Sure, capitalists making other people suffer and go into poverty is completely fine, but when they're taxed to help spread out the wealth to the people who need it, oh no no, that's just "socialism".

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Twenty percent of the USA population controls 91% of the USA's wealth. To be more exact, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth. Next 4% controls 28% of the wealth. Next 5% of the population controls 12% of the wealth. Next 10% controls 11% of the wealth.

The other eighty percent of the USA population controls 9% of the USA's wealth.



So in a room of 100 people and a single pie, one person get 40% of the pie. The other 19 people take 51% of the the pie. Then the remaining 80 people are forced to share 9% of the pie.

Once you are finished reading about the slander of Obama being a "socialist" and other libeling, you tell me where the so called "middle" class is because I'm having a hard time telling whether it even exists.





Riiiight, Cause everyone who's wealthy is a capitalist who exploits minimum wage right? Pfft, what a joke.

Taxing high income earners who sacrifice their time with their family to provide you people with goods and services only to be told they have to be taxed to fund those deadbeats who can't even be bothered to get off their arse at work, even for 20hours a week and a petrol station is fair? Riight, everything is not so black and white, if anything there are more grey areas than either.


Go learn about how the economy works before you attempt to pathetically ridicule me.

Why is a minimum wage called a minimum wage? Why does it exist? The sole existence of minimum wage is to ensure that companies cannot exploit its workers with cheap labor for the intent of greater profits. The minimum wage is set (which is atm too low) so that people can "live". However, economist critics claim that the minimum wage isn't keeping on par with the inflation level and the raising costs of living. So sure, the minimum wage may go up 25 cents once in a while. However if the inflation index is at 50 cents, you're still behind by 25 cents.

Also, why do capitalists engage in so much production outside of the United States? It's pretty damn obvious it's because the cost of labor is abundantly cheaper than that of the United States. Even though there are people in our country that need jobs, we continue to use China or other countries to get the maximum profit possible. Not all unemployed workers are "lazy asses" as you think. If you know anything about the market, you would know how bad the USA economy is at the moment.

Tax high income "earners" who "sacrifice" their time with their family to provide people with goods? Don't make me laugh. The capitalist class are labeled as people who "own the means of production". In other words, the wealthy don't directly engage in any direct production of their products. In fact, most of the wealthy spend most of their time managing their wealth rather than directly engaging in production. So who does most of the production? That's right, the so called "middle" class. Depending on the company they work for, their general income salary is much smaller than the profit margin. In other words, for every 1$ you work, the capitalist wealthy may be making 5-7$ dollars. Yes, that's how capitalism works and it can work if there we stop viewing USA as a closed market. We engage in so much outside production that the wealthy are becoming rich at a very rapid rate while the working class are becoming poorer as the result.

Here's a quick diagram:
CEO pays China 2$ to make product A.
Product A is made in China and redistributed to USA.
Product A in USA is then bought for 6$. The profit margin is 4$ for the CEO.
Now where is this 4$ used? Probably 1$ is spent on the the USA market while the 3$ is then again spent on outside investments.

At the same time, CEO pays USA worker 4$ to work.
Profit margin for the CEO from USA worker is 6$.
This 6$ is then spent to buy products which the CEO made and the money goes directly back to them.
The money which the CEO makes from the USA worker is then spent on China or another foreign stock investment.

Tell me, is this a fair flow of money?

BTW, that's excluding all the government subsidies and bailout and the bank investments on these companies which are largely funded by the general people through taxes and bank deposits.



The force of propaganda and stupidity are strong in you young padawan. Now shut up and go read a real book (No that does not include your school textbook) on how our economy and how the global economy works.




Before you go searching the internet to learn about economy, how about you go and meet everyone of those so called wealthy people huh? Do you know their business practices? Because you read it on the net does NOT make it true for everyone. Does every company engage in off shore production? Can you be sure? No? Shut up before you make such ill informed comments. Until you have met every single person in the "wealthy" category then your opinion is mute.


Statistics and numbers don't lie son, people do.



5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/10/08 , edited 11/10/08

twixandchips wrote:

i hope there aren't any people who supported him without looking into his policies and at his record, or just supported him because of his magically vague catch phrases.



I hope you know that's exactly why a majority of people voted for either candidate. Most people who don't like Obama say he's a terrorist, a socialist, a Muslim, an inexperienced noob who's going to get pounded all the big bad foreign countries. Most people who don't like McCain say he's just like Bush, that he's too old, that he's going to die soon and that Palin would be too retarded to take over for him. Most people voted with their emotions that were fueled by all of that propaganda, very few people have even a basic understanding of their policies.


sainthaven wrote:

One thing that bothers me though, is that he has not refuted the claims of being the first black president. It seems very very few americans know their history. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the USA was the son of a black man and white woman. Abe Lincoln was described as dark skin with wirey hair, he was the illigit son of a white woman and a plantation worker, born from an unfaithful mother who was married to a white man but raised anyway. Recent DNA test have shown that Abe indeed was half black. There are a few more presidents being half black and or native american. Democrats at the time labeled the first republican president, abe lincoln as "abe africanus the first", as a form of mockery. Oh the irony.

Obama is the son of a white women and a black man from Kenya, who left the woman to raise the boy alone. If hes half and half, and so are some of our first and greatest presidents, why do they keep trying to over write history by labeling him as the first? Do the Demos want to discredit the first repub president? I really dont have an answer for this but it does bother me.


Obama is more dark-skinned than any other president, and most people, including himself, consider to him to be black because of that. If we were living in the slavery days, he would've been picking cotton with the rest of us because of his skin. During the Civil War, he would not have been allowed to fight because of his skin. In the early 1900s he would've had just as much of a chance of getting lynched as the rest of us because of his skin. In the days of segregation, he would've had to use the colored facilities and been banned from whites only places because of his skin. Since he would have, and probably has, faced the same discrimination and hardships as other black people, then people consider him to be black. Race isn't only based on genetics.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 11/11/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


twixandchips wrote:

i hope there aren't any people who supported him without looking into his policies and at his record, or just supported him because of his magically vague catch phrases.



I hope you know that's exactly why a majority of people voted for either candidate. Most people who don't like Obama say he's a terrorist, a socialist, a Muslim, an inexperienced noob who's going to get pounded all the big bad foreign countries. Most people who don't like McCain say he's just like Bush, that he's too old, that he's going to die soon and that Palin would be too retarded to take over for him. Most people voted with their emotions that were fueled by all of that propaganda, very few people have even a basic understanding of their policies.


sainthaven wrote:

One thing that bothers me though, is that he has not refuted the claims of being the first black president. It seems very very few americans know their history. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the USA was the son of a black man and white woman. Abe Lincoln was described as dark skin with wirey hair, he was the illigit son of a white woman and a plantation worker, born from an unfaithful mother who was married to a white man but raised anyway. Recent DNA test have shown that Abe indeed was half black. There are a few more presidents being half black and or native american. Democrats at the time labeled the first republican president, abe lincoln as "abe africanus the first", as a form of mockery. Oh the irony.

Obama is the son of a white women and a black man from Kenya, who left the woman to raise the boy alone. If hes half and half, and so are some of our first and greatest presidents, why do they keep trying to over write history by labeling him as the first? Do the Demos want to discredit the first repub president? I really dont have an answer for this but it does bother me.


Obama is more dark-skinned than any other president, and most people, including himself, consider to him to be black because of that. If we were living in the slavery days, he would've been picking cotton with the rest of us because of his skin. During the Civil War, he would not have been allowed to fight because of his skin. In the early 1900s he would've had just as much of a chance of getting lynched as the rest of us because of his skin. In the days of segregation, he would've had to use the colored facilities and been banned from whites only places because of his skin. Since he would have, and probably has, faced the same discrimination and hardships as other black people, then people consider him to be black. Race isn't only based on genetics.


you need to go back a read ur history books again Blacks fought on BOTH side during the Civil War.

and race is genetics or more so Ancestry. who are what your parents and backwere not skin color. there are other races how can look just as dark but not considered black, such as Indians and my Italian Grand father looks darker then obama he is not consider black.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/11/08

Sleepneeded127 wrote:

you need to go back a read ur history books again Blacks fought on BOTH side during the Civil War.


Yes I just remembered that, everyone makes mistakes. But I still made my point with the other examples.


and race is genetics or more so Ancestry. who are what your parents and backwere not skin color. there are other races how can look just as dark but not considered black, such as Indians and my Italian Grand father looks darker then obama he is not consider black.


Race is also based on how society perceives you, and that is usually based on skin color. Even though Obama's ancestry isn't fully black, he still would have (and probably has) faced the same discrimination and hardships that other black people faced because his skin, hair, and facial features are what people normally associate with a black person . Genetically he isn't 100% black, but by our social standards he is, which is what really matters in this situation.
370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Hollywood, Califo...
Offline
Posted 11/11/08 , edited 11/11/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:

you need to go back a read ur history books again Blacks fought on BOTH side during the Civil War.


Yes I just remembered that, everyone makes mistakes. But I still made my point with the other examples.


and race is genetics or more so Ancestry. who are what your parents and backwere not skin color. there are other races how can look just as dark but not considered black, such as Indians and my Italian Grand father looks darker then obama he is not consider black.


Race is also based on how society perceives you, and that is usually based on skin color. Even though Obama's ancestry isn't fully black, he still would have (and probably has) faced the same discrimination and hardships that other black people faced because his skin, hair, and facial features are what people normally associate with a black person . Genetically he isn't 100% black, but by our social standards he is, which is what really matters in this situation.


You mean how you perceive yourself? Can you take a stab at who said " I ceased to advertised my mothers race at the age of 12 or 13, as I suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites..." Or how about "And yet, even as I imagined myself following Malcom's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish that he'd once had, a wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might some how expunged.." Obama. He has a past history of racism, racism in the form of dividing "white" people and "black" people in terms of stereotyping. IF this were done by any other white president, the hypocrisy bomb would blow and people would label that person as racist.

So you see, its really about how Obama perceives himself, and how it all goes back to that one quote " I ceased to advertise my mothers race". I dont think anyone can argue that Abe Lincoln, has done more for the african american people than any other president. In fact, Abe was treated like a second class citizen by those who opposed him, so much so that the country divided up because of his race and message. Those states who opposed the first half black republican president created the Confederate. SO you see his race was perceived not as a white persons back then, and as a final note on his history, he was assassinated.

I think you have your perspective upside down to be honest.


5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/11/08 , edited 11/11/08

sainthaven wrote:
He has a past history of racism, racism in the form of dividing "white" people and "black" people in terms of stereotyping. IF this were done by any other white president, the hypocrisy bomb would blow and people would label that person as racist.


I can't say anything about his past since I don't know much, but I know that during his presidential campaign, he never used his race to gain an advantage. He never said "vote for me because I'm black," or "if you don't vote for me you're racist," those are all things that other people who have no relation to him or the election said. Honestly, I'm sure that if he was such a huge hypocritical bigot, McCain and Palin would have used that to their advantage in their whole mudslinging fiasco.


So you see, its really about how Obama perceives himself


Is it really? If the KKK was out looking for someone to lynch and the saw him walking down the street, what would they say? "Hey, there's a black guy."

If public buildings were still segregated and Obama walked into a whites only place, what would they say? "Hey, there's a black guy."

The very first time most people ever heard of Obama, back when this whole election started back in 2006 or whatever, and saw him for the first time, what did they say? "Hey, there's a black guy."

So it's not only about how he sees himself, it's about how the rest of our society perceives him as well, and the first thing that comes to most people's minds when they see a picture of Obama is "Hey, there's a black guy."


I dont think anyone can argue that Abe Lincoln, has done more for the african american people than any other president. In fact, Abe was treated like a second class citizen by those who opposed him, so much so that the country divided up because of his race and message. Those states who opposed the first half black republican president created the Confederate. SO you see his race was perceived not as a white persons back then, and as a final note on his history, he was assassinated.


If you really believe that Lincoln's race was the main reason why the southern states seceded and started the Civil war, you really need to go brush up on your history.

He probably did do more for black people than other presidents, that doesn't mean he's black, or that he was compelled to do it because he's half black. He wasn't assassinated because of his race either, it was because John Wilkes Booth's plan to restore the Confederacy was to assassinate Lincoln and overthrow the government, which backfired obviously. I'm not sure if my history teacher just made it up, but Booth was also supposedly mentally unstable and had a history of violent behavior.

I highly doubt that if Lincoln would have gotten elected if he was viewed as a black person. Even though the majority of the votes came from big northern states who generally opposed slavery, they were still pretty racist and did not think that black people had the ability to many things that white people could do, including leading a country. If they thought otherwise, we wouldn't have had to wait over 100 years after slavery ended to finally be seen as Americans rather than the "inferior" race.

370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Hollywood, Califo...
Offline
Posted 11/11/08 , edited 11/11/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


sainthaven wrote:
He has a past history of racism, racism in the form of dividing "white" people and "black" people in terms of stereotyping. IF this were done by any other white president, the hypocrisy bomb would blow and people would label that person as racist.


I can't say anything about his past since I don't know much, but I know that during his presidential campaign, he never used his race to gain an advantage. He never said "vote for me because I'm black," or "if you don't vote for me you're racist," those are all things that other people who have no relation to him or the election said. Honestly, I'm sure that if he was such a huge hypocritical bigot, McCain and Palin would have used that to their advantage in their whole mudslinging fiasco.


He had is wife do it for him in interviews, as well as make it clear he went to all black church, which he then tried to deny after it was admitted earlier. Actions can speak just as loud as words to get a message across. Just like Palin and her winkadink habit/move.




If you really believe that Lincoln's race was the main reason why the southern states seceded and started the Civil war, you really need to go brush up on your history.

He probably did do more for black people than other presidents, that doesn't mean he's black, or that he was compelled to do it because he's half black. He wasn't assassinated because of his race either, it was because John Wilkes Booth's plan to restore the Confederacy was to assassinate Lincoln and overthrow the government, which backfired obviously. I'm not sure if my history teacher just made it up, but Booth was also supposedly mentally unstable and had a history of violent behavior.

I highly doubt that if Lincoln would have gotten elected if he was viewed as a black person. Even though the majority of the votes came from big northern states who generally opposed slavery, they were still pretty racist and did not think that black people had the ability to many things that white people could do, including leading a country. If they thought otherwise, we wouldn't have had to wait over 100 years after slavery ended to finally be seen as Americans rather than the "inferior" race.



History of the GOP begins with the breaking off of the democrat party due to disagreements about slavery among other things. Abe Lincoln was nominated by the GOP to run for presidency. You think it coincidence that the GOP wanted Abe (given his darker than normal skin and ethnicity) to carry out the new found parties view on slavery and how to abolish it?

Abe Lincoln and the GOP gaining office slit the country, they reacted to his views as well as his looks.

To disprove your guess in red, Abe was called "Abe Africanus the First" by his democrat opponents. This shows that he was viewed as part black in addition to his and the GOP's stance on slavery.

21144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / PLANTS
Offline
Posted 11/11/08
this would be an interesting 4 year run for america
Posted 11/11/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


twixandchips wrote:

i hope there aren't any people who supported him without looking into his policies and at his record, or just supported him because of his magically vague catch phrases.



I hope you know that's exactly why a majority of people voted for either candidate. Most people who don't like Obama say he's a terrorist, a socialist, a Muslim, an inexperienced noob who's going to get pounded all the big bad foreign countries. Most people who don't like McCain say he's just like Bush, that he's too old, that he's going to die soon and that Palin would be too retarded to take over for him. Most people voted with their emotions that were fueled by all of that propaganda, very few people have even a basic understanding of their policies.


sainthaven wrote:

One thing that bothers me though, is that he has not refuted the claims of being the first black president. It seems very very few americans know their history. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the USA was the son of a black man and white woman. Abe Lincoln was described as dark skin with wirey hair, he was the illigit son of a white woman and a plantation worker, born from an unfaithful mother who was married to a white man but raised anyway. Recent DNA test have shown that Abe indeed was half black. There are a few more presidents being half black and or native american. Democrats at the time labeled the first republican president, abe lincoln as "abe africanus the first", as a form of mockery. Oh the irony.

Obama is the son of a white women and a black man from Kenya, who left the woman to raise the boy alone. If hes half and half, and so are some of our first and greatest presidents, why do they keep trying to over write history by labeling him as the first? Do the Demos want to discredit the first repub president? I really dont have an answer for this but it does bother me.


Obama is more dark-skinned than any other president, and most people, including himself, consider to him to be black because of that. If we were living in the slavery days, he would've been picking cotton with the rest of us because of his skin. During the Civil War, he would not have been allowed to fight because of his skin. In the early 1900s he would've had just as much of a chance of getting lynched as the rest of us because of his skin. In the days of segregation, he would've had to use the colored facilities and been banned from whites only places because of his skin. Since he would have, and probably has, faced the same discrimination and hardships as other black people, then people consider him to be black. Race isn't only based on genetics.


ummm .. no he would be picking cotton due to the "One-Drop Rule"
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.