# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  "The First African-American President"

## Oneironaut Zero

I just wanted to clear up what seems to be a lot of confusion.

Many people seem to have a problem with people constantly referring to Obama as "the first African-American" president, being that he is only half black. The fact of the matter, though, is that, in America, your ethnicity is officially determined by the ethnicity of your father. Technically, yes, he is bi-racial. But, by American standards and for all logistics purposes, he is African-American. This is why people are constantly using the term. 

That being said; what do _you_ think is the significance (or lack thereof) of their being the first "black" president? Do you think it matters for any reason? Do you think it's totally insignificant? Do you embrace the cultural importance? Do you wish people would just stfu about it? What?

----------


## Serkat

I think the term is kind of dumb. First off, what's the point. Secondly, African isn't even an ethnicity, that's like saying "Yeah, Athens is somewhere on the Eurasian continent". Now for Obama it's true he was born in Africa but why does it even fuckin' matter if quite obviously he's American in his language, mannerisms and everything else. All that matters is the color of his skin, not the country of his origin. He might as well be born to black Russians. (That sounds like an awesome drink.)

Why would you even use the term if you're talking about an average American who has some hair-thin remote connection to Africa that's basically irrelevant to that person's life. That's like making him less American for no purpose whatsoever, or calling all white Americans European-Americans because they descended from Europeans. Who cares.

Also it seems to be incomprehensible to people that white people inhabit Africa so African-American is a misleading term at best. Why not just take a skin sample of everybody and analyze the darkness percentage and then just put that into the files so we can just say "Obama is the first president with over 60&#37; melamin pigments in his untanned skin" and instead focus on the "oh noes 1984"-whining and bitching. Also we would have to ban tanning salons (dipshit toasters).

----------


## Black_Eagle

He wasn't born in Africa, he was born in Hawaii. Anyone who was born in another country can't run for President here in the US.

----------


## Serkat

Lol wow I need to get my facts straight, thanks.

Anyway, then that's just one more point for the fact that calling him African-American is dubious.

----------


## guitarboy

Wow. Frist he's muslim, now he's born in Africa.
I agree,(with what I think Serkat was saying) Why call some one African-American, even if they are not rooted back to Africa?

----------


## panta-rei

I really don't see why its such a problem...

He's a good speaker (Which is apparently all we put merit in), and should be a fine president.

----------


## guitarboy

Wait, it went from" Obama is African, even if his mother is white," to "I think he is going to be a good president"

----------


## panta-rei

As in, race doesn't matter for the type of president...

----------


## Serkat

> Wait, it went from" Obama is African, even if his mother is white," to "I think he is going to be a good president"



It didn't "go" anywhere, there was just one guy saying that as a side-opinion.

----------


## Invader

It means that America is sloooooooooooowwwwwwllllyyyyy overcoming it's racism problem. Considering where this country was at one point in the past, I'd say it's a step forward. Especially considering that every president before Obama was Caucasian.

----------


## drewmandan

How dare a country 90&#37; white elect white presidents.

/ban

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Wow. Frist he's muslim, now he's born in Africa.
> I agree,(with what I think Serkat was saying) Why call some one African-American, even if they are not rooted back to Africa?



Because our lineage, for the most part, traces back to Africa. 

Any culture who began outside of America has their original culture tacked on to "American"

Except, of course, the European Americans, probably because the settlers didn't want it to seem like they were "different" and that they were "just Americans." So calling a Caucasian a "European American," while just as accurate as any other culture's label, seems redundant.






> How dare a country 90% white elect white presidents.
> 
> /ban



This country is 90% white?  ::wtf::

----------


## deepsleep

I really didin't want him to win, But i'd rather have him in the white house then Hilary.

----------


## drewmandan

> This country is 90&#37; white?



Oh, sorry, 80% white. Like it makes a difference to my point.

CIA:





> white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Oh, sorry, 80% white. Like it makes a difference to my point.
> 
> CIA:



I'd say that, unless your point was that it would be stupid to expect for that 80% not to be entirely racist, it was doomed from the start.

----------


## drewmandan

> I'd say that, unless your point was that it would be stupid to expect for that 80% not to be entirely racist, it was doomed from the start.



My point is that even in a completely non-racist society that was 80% white, there should be an 80% chance for any given politician to be white. So it should not be seen as some sort of national mark of shame to elect whites.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> My point is that even in a completely non-racist society that was 80% white, there should be an 80% chance for any given politician to be white. So it should not be seen as some sort of national mark of shame to elect whites.



I believe that might be an over-simplification. Would it not depend on other variables, such as which percentage of those races were actually running, which are qualified, and which had policies that the majority of the people would agree with? 

And I don't believe that anyone has considered it a mark of shame that there had been only whites elected. I believe, more, that there is just overwhelming elation over proof that the "80%" chance hadn't been boosted to closer to 100% because of racist ideals which _do_ exist.

----------


## Serkat

> Because our lineage, for the most part, traces back to Africa. 
> 
> Any culture who began outside of America has their original culture tacked on to "American"



Yeah but if, as is the case with almost all black Americans, you are fully a cultural American and have never even set foot on Africa, there's no point in using an oversimplifying label that misses the point. As I said, "African" isn't even an ethnicity or culture or anything like that. Africa is probably one of the most or even the single most diverse continent in terms of cultures, societies and languages so the only thing that really makes people African is their genetic ancestry and even so, indigenous black people are all over the globe, so it's really a mundane exercise in superfluous labeling when you could just say "black".

Also, why would anybody even care about their genetic ancestry? That seems like a waste of time to me since it has virtually no relevance to the present times. I'm probably genetically more Scandinavian than French or German but why would it matter? What, should I call myself Norwegian-German? That makes no sense at all.

Nobody honestly cares about whether someone has their genetic roots in Jamaica or Sudan, it's simply just about identification of racial traits.

And that's leaving out the fact that genetic differences along national and cultural borders are quite notable, to the point where it's a gross oversimplification to consider "black African" a shared genetic group. So you might as well go all the way and label by the color of the skin which has no political or cultural implications so it's all good.

----------


## drewmandan

> I believe that might be an over-simplification. Would it not depend on other variables, such as which percentage of those races were actually running, which are qualified, and which had policies that the majority of the people would agree with?



All else being equal. 





> And I don't believe that anyone has considered it a mark of shame that there had been only whites elected. I believe, more, that there is just overwhelming elation over proof that the "80%" chance hadn't been boosted to closer to 100% because of racist ideals which _do_ exist.



I don't think that's even remotely true, when I consider all the black and white commentators, after the election, talking about the black man getting in. They made it sound, and very unambiguously I might add, that if McCain had won, it would have been a racist election. 





> Yeah but if, as is the case with almost all black Americans, you are fully a cultural American and have never even set foot on Africa, there's no point in using an oversimplifying label that misses the point. As I said, "African" isn't even an ethnicity or culture or anything like that. Africa is probably one of the most or even the single most diverse continent in terms of cultures, societies and languages so the only thing that really makes people African is their genetic ancestry and even so, indigenous black people are all over the globe, so it's really a mundane exercise in superfluous labeling when you could just say "black".



I think there's a cultural notion that black people are economically disadvantaged in the US, which they may be. But when they say "African American", they really mean in terms of economic heritage, not ethnic. There is, of course, a correlation, due to the fact that most blacks began as slaves rather than rich Europeans. However, there is an interesting double standard here, as whites and hispanics or any other race that are equally disadvantaged do not get special treatment.

----------


## juroara

it is sooo significant that obama is the first black, skin colored, chocolate, what ever you want to call the oreo president. why? HELLO. Because _every_ president before him was a white male. 

if you cant understand the _historical significance_...I mean..come on! ITS MLK DAY! Why are you shitting over a term? The point is simple, its clear, its understood

----------


## drewmandan

> it is sooo significant that obama is the first black, skin colored, chocolate, what ever you want to call the oreo president. why? HELLO. Because _every_ president before him was a white male.



But you're insinuating that anyone who didn't vote for him is a racist, or at the very least, is wrong for voting on issues instead of skin colour.

----------


## Techno

I think he has darker skin, a different cultural perspective, and may or may not have a bigger penis (as the stereotype goes). Not that any of that would affect his presidency, but alright.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I don't think that's even remotely true, when I consider all the black and white commentators, after the election, talking about the black man getting in. They made it sound, and very unambiguously I might add, that if McCain had won, it would have been a racist election.



...Wow....I haven't gotten that feeling at all. All I've seen was celebration (for the most part) that we have our first black President - not that, if he hadn't gotten in it would have been because of racism.

----------


## Xei

To be honest I don't really buy the whole 'you are your father's race' idea. As far as I'm concerned he's half black.

I don't care either way, but it's a good sign that America has become quite socially mobile with regards to race. I'm glad about it, but it's nothing to celebrate in itself.

More than anything though I'm happy Obama as a person is about to become President. I agree with the large majority of what he stands for, and it's a huge relief after Bush. I've been particularly impressed by his plans to fund major research into alternate energy sources, and his removal of stem cell research prohibition... alongside quite a few other things.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> To be honest I don't really buy the whole 'you are your father's race' idea. As far as I'm concerned he's half black.



Now that I actually agree with. That is just the way the beans are counted in America. I believe that people should be counted as what they actually are, not just because one trait happens to be dominant over the other. I was just trying to offer up an explanation to something that people seem to find so confusing.

----------


## drewmandan

> ...Wow....I haven't gotten that feeling at all. All I've seen was celebration (for the most part) that we have our first black President - not that, if he hadn't gotten in it would have been because of racism.



I just call em like I see em. Maybe you don't want to see it because you're enthralled by him. I almost got caught up in it too. But then I started to notice the things people were saying. 

The fact is, whether you'll admit it or not, it became a moral issue to vote for him, at least in the urban centers. There are many places in America where you would get literally beaten if you tell someone you didn't vote for Obama.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I just call em like I see em. Maybe you don't want to see it because you're enthralled by him. I almost got caught up in it too. But then I started to notice the things people were saying. 
> 
> The fact is, whether you'll admit it or not, it became a moral issue to vote for him, at least in the urban centers. There are many places in America where you would get literally beaten if you tell someone you didn't vote for Obama.



As is said many times in this forum, I was gunning for Ron Paul. Your "moral issue" and "enthralled" comments (as pertains to me) would be insubstantial. 

Perhaps you interpreted things the way you did because you expected people to react in a way that said McCain's winning would have been racist. I was a _really_ late bloomer, when it came to Obama, and it wasn't until very close to the election that I actually started pulling for him.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

I've actually never heard of that before. In any case we definitely wouldn't be calling him anything different if his mother was black and father was white.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> In any case we definitely wouldn't be calling him anything different if his mother was black and father was white.



What makes you so sure?

[Edit: I'm looking into the "Father's Side vs. Mother's Side" thing. It looks like it's changed a few times, over the years, and I'm trying to find out what it's settled upon.]

----------


## Mes Tarrant

Yeah it's an interesting thing to look into. I'm trying to think of any celebs we know of who have parents like that...

----------


## Ne-yo

> Yeah it's an interesting thing to look into. I'm trying to think of any celebs we know of who have parents like that...



 
Here are a few that are not exactly the same decent as Obama's parents but they are all bi-racial black/white.

*Halle Berry* - Actress, is the daughter of a White mother and Black father.



*Jennifer Beals* - Actress, is the daughter of a White mother and Black father.



*Persia White* - Actress, her father is Black Bahamian and her mother is a White.




*Grant Hill -* Basket ball player is the son of a black (bi-racial) father and white mother.




Tons more listed at this site also.
http://www.blackflix.com/articles/multiracial.html

Some celeb's I had no idea were bi-racial. Very interesting.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

Those support O's point... I was hoping to find ones with a white father and a black mother!

Maybe black chicks just don't go for white dudes.  :Cheeky:  I don't blame them sometimes.

----------


## Serkat

I wasn't questioning the historical significance of this event, I was merely pointing out that the event is significant because he's black, not because his genetic roots are in Africa. The halfness of his blackness is irrelevant because the significance lies in the fact that he is not fully white.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I wasn't questioning the historical significance of this event, I was merely pointing out that the event is significant because he's black, not because his genetic roots are in Africa. The halfness of his blackness is irrelevant because the significance lies in the fact that he is not fully white.



I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying that the event is not significant because he's "African American," but because he's anything but white? 

If that's what you're saying, I think you're wrong. There is no other culture (except for maybe the Native Americans) who have undergone the type of adversity from whites as the blacks have, over the years. There is no other culture (possibly not in numbers, just as well as in influence) that this occasion would have so many implications for - were Obama of any other color. This should be painfully obvious. Is this what you're disputing?

His being "African American" is the alternative label for his being black. I understand that what you mean is that even a white person can be "African American," but the moniker is what has been attached to blacks of African descent. (That is not to say that it doesn't technically apply to whites of African lineage either. I actually haven't seen a case where that's proven to the contrary.) What you seem to be arguing is semantics...and how important are they, really? It is just a label - a widely accepted one - even if not as "all encompassing" as it should be.

----------


## night_watcher

My two cents then. 

Yes, we must recognize the historical significance of the first non-white president. Up until a few generations ago, white people dominated the political spectrum, and now that has changed. It shows that we are moving away from our racist ancestors, and starting to accept people as they should be, as people. This is a great day for the human race, and should be a point of reflection to show how far we have come thanks to MLK and the Civil Rights Movement.

Now, as for the politics, this was the year for the Democrats. In fact, it was their perfect storm. Bush has been widely criticized, and the GOP has been beaten up too many times in the last eight years for there to be a strong Republican push. McCain did well, very well considering the circumstances. But it was the Democratic race to lose. Remember how everyone assumed Hillary would win? Or look at how many seats the Democrats have now in the Senate, almost at the 60-40 mark! So, does it surprise me that Obama, a Democrat, won over a Republican? No. 

But do I think race played a factor into his victory? You bet I do! Look at Hillary with her army of women behind her. Of course the minority will rally behind a leader that represents hope and change. I heard on the news about churches that rallied their members to go vote for Obama because of his race. This really was a change: the church and the right have been buddies for a LONG time. Of course race played a part. Only a fool would debate otherwise.

As for him being part black. Or part "African-American", depending on how PC you want to be. Yes, his father is from Kenya. Great. Is this going to change the way he tackles the economic mess? No. So what does it matter? He is a symbol now of African Americans. If it turned out that his father was really from Indiana and he got his color from his great-great-great grandfather, he still would be a symbol of hope for the colored minority of America.

*Side note: I wanted McCain for many reasons, one being the lack of experience Obama has and I disagree with him on fundamental ways that government should operate. But we still should recognize how far we have come to equality. Then we need to move on and tackle the issues*

----------


## Serkat

> I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying that the event is not significant because he's "African American," but because he's anything but white?



Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant to say the same as you, as in: He is visibly part-black which is what is relevant.





> His being "African American" is the alternative label for his being black. I understand that what you mean is that even a white person can be "African American," but the moniker is what has been attached to blacks of African descent. (That is not to say that it doesn't technically apply to whites of African lineage either. I actually haven't seen a case where that's proven to the contrary.) What you seem to be arguing is semantics...and how important are they, really?



I think they are incredibly important really, especially in this case, because African-American just sounds part-African, part-American... which is false and misleading, since it's just Americans of a specific skin color. The "African" part pertains to genetics, the "American" part pertains to citizenship and culture. They don't have anything to do with one another.

So really they're full-American with specific features... so calling them African-American is like calling all gay Americans Homo-Americans... why would you do that other than to imply that somehow there's something wrong with them being American?

And yes, my point is that shifting an adjective to a compound noun that becomes a set term to refer to a group of people is a highly significant process. You use the adjective to selectively refer to specific features of people... but you use the nouns to create and refer to groups of people... so you wouldn't refer to a gay American as "gay American" all the time, unless in the case where his gayness actually has anything to do with what you're talking about. However, when it's a set noun phrase, you invoke his gayness constantly and thereby single that person out for one specific personal feature, and also put all these people in a distinct group identified by one shared characteristic.

Neither racial features nor sexual orientation have anything to do with ones cultural or national identity. So all it does is further separation by combining two terms that don't relate to one another in any significant or meaningful way.

----------


## tkdyo

I have a different view on why this is historic I think...

I think during the 90's especially we moved away from racism greatly, so its no suprise to me that black politicians who have good ideas are moved to the forefront and do well.  Here is what I really think this signifies though...I think this is showing progress not so much racism wise, but economics wise.

I feel that this shows to me that not only are blacks MOSTLY treated equal by everyone now, but they now are also gaining ecnomic equality as well.  I think Obama's story illustrates this very well.  So, my feeling is, yeah, its great that a black man with ideas finally got recognized for the office...but even better it shows that MLK's dream of bringing blacks above the slums and the crime is indeed beginning to progress, and that is great for our country's unity.

----------


## Techno

Puffy puffy words are puffy. I want to see some results. And I will be waiting, and waiting. Like all of you.

----------


## juroara

> But you're insinuating that anyone who didn't vote for him is a racist, or at the very least, is wrong for voting on issues instead of skin colour.




seriously drew, you have issues

I insinuated nothing

the studies of the polls show us that our election was more about the youth versus old, than skin color

----------


## Malac Reborn

> \ Secondly, African isn't even an ethnicity,



 Hmm...Are you stupid?

----------


## Serkat

> Hmm...Are you stupid?



No, I am in fact intelligent, highly even.

----------


## drewmandan

> the studies of the polls show us that our election was more about the youth versus old, than skin color



Do you understand what this statement actually implies? The only way to prove that there was no racial bias would be to look at a group like blacks and see what percentage of them voted for Obama. If it's close to the election results as a whole, then you're probably right. But if it turns out that 90% of blacks voted for Obama, then there definitely was racial bias.

----------


## illidan

I think Obama's election is significant not only politically but also culturally. I believe America needs more black role models who are not rappers or gangsters.

----------


## deepsleep

> America needs more black role models who are not rappers or gangsters.



I 100&#37; agree.

----------


## hellohihello

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4


now on-topic.... I don't picture him as black.. well partially but it really doesn't bother me. I don't care what race someone is as long as they are qualified. I hope everyone respects him if he can't do what he promised because what's a president without support.. Not supporting someone in charge of you isn't good.

----------


## Xei

I liked his speech. He made a big thing peaceful foreign policy, and most interestingly of rescuing scientific progress... and he even said 'hi' to the atheists. So different from Bush.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant to say the same as you, as in: He is visibly part-black which is what is relevant.
> 
> I think they are incredibly important really, especially in this case, because African-American just sounds part-African, part-American... which is false and misleading, since it's just Americans of a specific skin color. The "African" part pertains to genetics, the "American" part pertains to citizenship and culture. They don't have anything to do with one another.
> 
> So really they're full-American with specific features... so calling them African-American is like calling all gay Americans Homo-Americans... why would you do that other than to imply that somehow there's something wrong with them being American?
> 
> And yes, my point is that shifting an adjective to a compound noun that becomes a set term to refer to a group of people is a highly significant process. You use the adjective to selectively refer to specific features of people... but you use the nouns to create and refer to groups of people... so you wouldn't refer to a gay American as "gay American" all the time, unless in the case where his gayness actually has anything to do with what you're talking about. However, when it's a set noun phrase, you invoke his gayness constantly and thereby single that person out for one specific personal feature, and also put all these people in a distinct group identified by one shared characteristic.
> 
> Neither racial features nor sexual orientation have anything to do with ones cultural or national identity. So all it does is further separation by combining two terms that don't relate to one another in any significant or meaningful way.



Though, in this particular instance, the semantics really _aren't_ important. What I meant by the title was to bring reference to Obama's being (technically, even if only by rule of dominant gene) "black." "African-American" was the term that I used, because it is the term being most commonly used. I believe you got so stuck on the term itself that you missed the point. I was asking what people thought of all the talk of their being a "black" President.

----------


## Sornaensis

I enjoyed listening to the speech given by our first mulatto president.  :smiley: 

I hope he does well, because if he fucks up now, it affects us all. :/

----------


## Serkat

> Though, in this particular instance, the semantics really _aren't_ important. What I meant by the title was to bring reference to Obama's being (technically, even if only by rule of dominant gene) "black." "African-American" was the term that I used, because it is the term being most commonly used. I believe you got so stuck on the term itself that you missed the point. I was asking what people thought of all the talk of their being a "black" President.



Oh OK sorry.

Well, of course I recognize the historical significance of this, however I do feel that there's a limit to how often something can be repeated before it feels like you're getting bukkake'd with it and you just hope you get your 50 bucks and never see those men again... dirty reporters.

----------


## Ynot

see the second post in this thread
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=47865

America, the land where you're always a different nationality to the truth....

----------


## tkdyo

so apparently no one agrees with me, lol.

----------


## juroara

> Do you understand what this statement actually implies? The only way to prove that there was no racial bias would be to look at a group like blacks and see what percentage of them voted for Obama. If it's close to the election results as a whole, then you're probably right. But if it turns out that 90% of blacks voted for Obama, then there definitely was racial bias.



my statement does not imply anything

It means exactly what it says

It was the independent voters, the swing voters, the youth vote, and the first time voters who made the difference. That was the trump card that Obama brought to the table. He inspired an entire _new_ group of voters.

It was NOT the black vote that gave victory to Obama alone, no one was counting on the black vote to go republican anyways. Historically it has been a largely solid vote, and it has been these past years, mostly democratic to begin with. Obama is democratic, promises to fix the economy and to raise america from the bottom up, and not top down. These are issues important to the black vote. Obama also being black, was just the icing on the cake.

The black vote is not enough to win the office. It just so happens to turn out, issues that are important to the black vote, are important to America at large. 

When they looked at the polls, and drew a line between McCain and Obama -the _biggest difference_ was not race, was not gender - it was AGE....AGE....But heres the catch. The younger a person is, the less likely they will vote. So how did Obama win, when historically its been the older generations who get their way? Because we younger generations finally got off our arse and voted. 

Historically speaking, he will go down in the books as the first african american president, a victory for all african americans in light of their history and heritage. 

But also, Obamas victory signifies the passing of a generation . . . . :OK Bye now:

----------


## Xei

It's hard to say whether or not Obama got in because of race.

If it were down to the whites alone, he would have lost by quite a margin. If it were down to the blacks, he would have won by quite a margin.

If race was not an issue, it may have been the case that fewer black people would have voted for him, but then again, it would probably have also been the case that more white people would have voted for him.

----------


## Alric

Well the election was never about the issues. If we were talking about the issues, Ron Paul would of won by a landslide. The elections in the US, are rarely about the issues. Most of them lie anyway, and never give what the promise.

Everyone knows he won because he is a 'charismatic' person. It wasn't his issue, but that he seems like a nice guy. Its just like bush. Why did he win? We all knew he was an idiot, but he seemed like a nice guy. As they were always saying back then, people vote for the person who they feel like they would most like to hang out with, who seems like they could be friends with.

I don't see any difference between him winning because he is black, and bush winning because he seemed like a cool person to hang out with in a bar. Both are stupid reasons to vote for someone.

----------


## tkdyo

> Well the election was never about the issues. If we were talking about the issues, Ron Paul would of won by a landslide.



exactly

/thread

----------


## BlueFly

I've heard that he's actually only 8% black. But does it matter?
I hate how a lot of people voted or didn't vote for him based on color. His ideas are great. But the group of African-Americans (Can't remember the name..) who threatened people who didn't vote for him and threatened to riot if he lost? Common...

----------


## Serkat

> Well the election was never about the issues.



It was.



> If we were talking about the issues, Ron Paul would of won by a landslide.



No. Most people don't like his positions and he comes across as a bit of a nut.

----------


## O'nus

> Many people seem to have a problem with people constantly referring to Obama as "the first African-American" president, being that he is only half black. The fact of the matter, though, is that, in America, your ethnicity is officially determined by the ethnicity of your father. Technically, yes, he is bi-racial. But, by American standards and for all logistics purposes, he is African-American. This is why people are constantly using the term. 
> 
> That being said; what do _you_ think is the significance (or lack thereof) of their being the first "black" president? Do you think it matters for any reason? Do you think it's totally insignificant? Do you embrace the cultural importance? Do you wish people would just stfu about it? What?



The human mind is completely dependent upon gestalt knowledge; actions speak louder than words and thoughts.

For too many years, it has been white males.  A break in tradition is traumatic no matter what the case.  Ever try turning your toilet paper around so that the paper comes out the back rather than front or vice-versa?  Room-mates freak!  Even taking someones typical class-room seat is a traumatizing event for some.

Won cause he's black?  Once we see a race to vote comparison, then I will make comments.  Otherwise, all I'll say is I heard people before say, "I voted for him cause he has a nice sign/face/voice/ass/etc.".  There will always be personal rationalizing for voting behaviour, this is psephology.  Psephology and sociology both attest that emotions are completely subjective and that no one singular reason stands out alone over others.  There are far too many reasons why he won.  There are far too many reason why others did not.

Too many people that make these accusations are also subject to the criticism that "you probably did not vote for him because he is black".  It goes both ways.  

~

----------


## Alric

Its funny you say that, since obama and mccian both pretty much avoided the issues. Obama really has no issues. He comes across as a nice guy, and he promised change and won on that. I suppose maybe their was health care but that was about it.

As for Ron Paul, the large majority of people who actually listened to him agree with him, and the people who don't agree with him can at least say he is a smart man.

----------


## tkdyo

yep, imagine if he had been invited to more debates...or more anything.  The media would have had a much harder time portraying him as someone crazy.

----------


## Xei

> Its funny you say that, since obama and mccian both pretty much avoided the issues.



Not really? Pull out of Iraq, close down Guantanamo, create jobs, remove prohibition from scientific research, large investment in alternate energy sources... it seems pretty lucid to me what Obama stands for, policy-wise.

And no, people would not have voted Ron Paul on the issues. I wouldn't have. He was just yet another creation nut. I don't care if people say it's irrelevant, anybody who considers the possibility that the Earth is 4000 years old and humans are not animals does not belong in office.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Not really? Pull out of Iraq, close down Guantanamo, create jobs, remove prohibition from scientific research, large investment in alternate energy sources... it seems pretty lucid to me what Obama stands for, policy-wise.



When is he going to do those things?

----------


## Xei

He gave the order to close down Guantanamo today. I'd say that's pretty quick.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He gave the order to close down Guantanamo today. I'd say that's pretty quick.



Really?  I am at work and have not checked the news.  I hope that situation doesn't turn into a nightmare clusterfuck.  We don't need to have any more of those.

----------


## Xei

Are you for or against it?

Personally I think the place is a disgrace.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Are you for or against it?
> 
> Personally I think the place is a disgrace.



I'm undecided.  In ordinary wars, I don't think P.O.W.'s should be treated as common criminals.  That would be a disaster.  At the same time, I don't think regular Joes should ever have to deal with being taken to a prison and possibly held for decades and decades without the right to a trial. The vast majority of the people in Gitmo are scum who deserve to die, and those individuals don't have my sympathy, but the place definitely raises some serious constitutional issues, and we are not in an old fashioned war that will be over in a few years.  This shit will be going on for the rest of our lives.  

It's not an easy situation.

----------


## tkdyo

> And no, people would not have voted Ron Paul on the issues. I wouldn't have. He was just yet another creation nut. I don't care if people say it's irrelevant, anybody who considers the possibility that the Earth is 4000 years old and humans are not animals does not belong in office.



lol, just lol.  You dont think making the federal reserve non-private, closing down military bases in countries who we are not at war with, getting rid or improving wasteful government programs outweighs what is possibly his personal belief that he does not believe the government should be able to enforce on everyone?

and suddenly, IF Obama was muslim that is irrelevant yet, if RP was a creationist its relevant?

----------


## Xei

Is that all he said he'd do? That's vague, and rubbish. A little housekeeping is going to sort out the biggest recession for decades? Okay.

And stop it with the strawmen. Accepting that religious texts are metaphorical is rather different from believing every single word literally and actually acting upon them.

----------


## Alric

Closing Guantanamo isn't a platform, its a single action. And "creating jobs" is about as vague as you can get.

The economy is such an important thing today though. Ron Paul is the only one who ever spoke about the economy. I have never once seen obama, speak on inflation, the federal reserve, or cutting the debt in any serious way. Paul went into detail about how he could cut taxes(which would help the economy) and the debt at the same time.

tkdyo Is right too. He is the only one who spoke about government waste, on things such as military bases in the middle of no where, and in places there are not even conflict at today.

As for our depression, people who actually know about the economy have been predicting it for a very long time. No one wants to do anything about it and no one wants to talk about it.

----------


## Descensus

> It was.No. Most people don't like his positions and he comes across as a bit of a nut.



How can anyone not like a stable economy and a country run according to the Constitution like it should be and was originally intended to be run?

If Thomas Jefferson or people like him were alive today, people would probably feel the same way about Jefferson as they do Paul.

----------


## Carôusoul

Poor Ron.


;_;

----------


## Serkat

> How can anyone not like a stable economy and a country run according to the Constitution like it should be and was originally intended to be run?



Personally I'm not American so really I'm in no good position to judge but I haven't made the experience that Americans across the board get overly excited about the founding principles of their constitution and their country. While a number of people hold them dearly, the vast majority don't really care about values such as liberty, personal responsibility, local government, separation of church and state etc. etc. etc. If they did, Paul and the Libertarian Party wouldn't have gotten stuck with some single-digit percentages.

People honestly and proudly care about other issues, specifically those that media tends to talk about a lot more often (again, this is my impression as a European).

----------


## Descensus

> Personally I'm not American so really I'm in no good position to judge but I haven't made the experience that Americans across the board get overly excited about the founding principles of their constitution and their country. While a number of people hold them dearly, the vast majority don't really care about values such as liberty, personal responsibility, local government, separation of church and state etc. etc. etc. If they did, Paul and the Libertarian Party wouldn't have gotten stuck with some single-digit percentages.
> 
> People honestly and proudly care about other issues, specifically those that media tends to talk about a lot more often (again, this is my impression as a European).



I know. My statement was more of a rhetorical one. 

Far too many people are influence by the media, who focus on the most BS topics I've ever seen. That, and the twisted education system we have need to be fixed. It's like since First grade, we're being indoctrinated.

----------


## Alric

Most people in the US don't get excited about anything political. Its funny that you said people care about the issues the media talks about, instead of saying the media talks about the issues the people care about. Because its actually kind of true. People do follow the media, which lead to people voting for who is popular and seems like a nice guy, instead of voting on issues.

Its also interesting that you listed liberty as a value people don't care about. Anyone who doesn't think liberty is important, is a moron.

----------


## tkdyo

> And stop it with the strawmen. Accepting that religious texts are metaphorical is rather different from believing every single word literally and actually acting upon them.



strawmen you say?  Ron Paul in no way would enforce his personal view of the bible on the masses, and the ONLY way you could say he acts in governing according to this is him being Pro-choice.  I think you are letting your own bias contort my words.

If this is the case, then how they hell is it any different than any other religious belief?  

edit, BTW Sekrat, you are dead on.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He gave the order to close down Guantanamo today. I'd say that's pretty quick.



Okay, I got the full scoop on this.  He did give an "order" to close Guantanamo, but it was a very empty order.  The place is still open, it will be open tomorrow, and it will be open next week and for no telling how long after that.  Obama's press secretary was unable to give any specific details on the closing of Gitmo.  There is not even a plan on what to do with all of the terrorists who are in it.  So I am still wondering when Obama is going to do the stuff he talked about.  Maybe he will do all of it.  We will see.  But we are definitely still in the talk stage right now.  That is what politicians do.  They talk, and 99% of their talk is never anything more than talk.

----------


## Xei

> strawmen you say? Ron Paul in no way would enforce his personal view of the bible on the masses, and the ONLY way you could say he acts in governing according to this is him being Pro-choice. I think you are letting your own bias contort my words.
> 
> If this is the case, then how they hell is it any different than any other religious belief?



Surely fundamentalists are more likely to be pro-life?

The fact remains that this man is weak minded and has no capacity for rational thought at all. That's the whole point.

I doubt he was for stem-cell research or indeed any general scientific progress.

But really it's immaterial anyway. He was never going to get in, and he hasn't got in. What is he now? He's just a powerless man with some ideas. Who cares about Ron Paul.

----------


## tkdyo

infact...he WAS for stemcell research.  Also he is not anti-gay, he even says he will not call them sinners as others will.  Also, he rejected every bill that was an attempt to allow the government to define marriage.

He has plenty of rational thought, you obviously have not read up on any of the issues, as havnt most people who say these kind of shallow things

----------


## Descensus

> Surely fundamentalists are more likely to be pro-life?
> 
> The fact remains that this man is weak minded and has no capacity for rational thought at all. That's the whole point.
> 
> I doubt he was for stem-cell research or indeed any general scientific progress.
> 
> But really it's immaterial anyway. He was never going to get in, and he hasn't got in. What is he now? He's just a powerless man with some ideas. Who cares about Ron Paul.



Good God you're an idiot.

----------


## Xei

Ouch. You really nailed me there.

----------


## Descensus

> Ouch. You really nailed me there.



I know. Need some ice for that burn?

----------


## Xei

Ta.

If you'd care to elaborate that'd be appreciated. At the moment it just looks like you're upset about the fact that talking about Ron Paul is pointless.

----------


## Universal Mind

I love 95% of Ron Paul's ideas, but he would make a terrible leader.  He sounds like a whiney little old lady when he talks.  We need something tougher than that representing us on the world stage and dealing with other world leaders.  

I think the movie _Idiocracy_ was influenced by the Ron Paul campaign.  Most of what he spoke was pure genius, but all that most people heard him saying was, "Waahhh waaaahhhh waaaaahhhh waaaaahhhh cower out of Iraq waaaaahhhh waahhhh..."  I know it's stupid, but it does work that way.

----------


## Descensus

> Ta.
> 
> If you'd care to elaborate that'd be appreciated. At the moment it just looks like you're upset about the fact that talking about Ron Paul is pointless.



I have a huge man-crush on Ron Paul. Saying he's weak-minded and has no capacity for rational thought is ridiculous, too.

----------


## Xei

> I think the movie Idiocracy was influenced by the Ron Paul campaign. Most of what he spoke was pure genius, but all that most people heard him saying was, "Waahhh waaaahhhh waaaaahhhh waaaaahhhh cower out of Iraq waaaaahhhh waahhhh..." I know it's stupid, but it does work that way.



I don't see the link... I don't actually know but I wouldn't imagine that very many people at all knew who Ron Paul was in 2006, either.




> I have a huge man-crush on Ron Paul. Saying he's weak-minded and has no capacity for rational thought is ridiculous, too.



But he thinks evolution is a lie. :\

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't see the link... I don't actually know but I wouldn't imagine that very many people at all knew who Ron Paul was in 2006, either.



The movie came out then?  If so, never mind.  But the mock whining in that movie was a satire on how too many people pay so much more attention to the way a person acts than to what he is saying.  I think that is exactly Ron Paul's downfall.

----------


## Xei

It's a long time since I watched the movie, but I think I vaguely recall what you mean... when ever the guy started using whole sentences people would start going bla bla bla? Yeah I see how that's relevant, although a parody of politics specifically is a bit of a long shot...

I remember it was pretty funny though... the probe thing sticks in my mind.  ::D:

----------


## Universal Mind

> I remember it was pretty funny though... the probe thing sticks in my mind.



Yeah, it's one of the funniest movies I have come across in recent years.

----------


## tkdyo

> But he thinks evolution is a lie. :\



but he has better ideas on how to make this country stronger than half the politicians out there, what does that say about any kind of connotation?

----------


## O'nus

> But he thinks evolution is a lie. :\



Serious...?  Where did you see this?  I gotsta see.

~

----------


## Serkat



----------


## O'nus

:Sad: 

Oh Ron...

~

----------


## Grod

ron paul /dv/

----------


## Universal Mind

Ron Paul is apparently a religious person.  That is fine with me.  He wants to keep religion completely out of the government, so his religious beliefs are not a problem.  Lots of extremely brilliant people are religious.  It's strange, but it's true.

----------


## Serkat

I think that acting competently as a politician requires a basic understanding of human nature and the social sciences. If you believe humans in their current form were put on earth some 5000 years ago, you are lacking this basic understanding and it is impossible for you to understand any of the social sciences and humanities properly because you are oblivious to the guiding principle that made humans what they are today - evolution.

That's why I always say it's ridiculous to think you can just disconnect a person's religious beliefs from any of their personal traits. To the contrary, whether or not and to what extent a person is religious is incredibly important to who that person is - which is why it's important for politicians. Otherwise you are falling into the trap of letting the label "religious" fool you into thinking you need to treat those aspects differently than any other - thereby ignoring the fact that you are still essentially looking at a deluded person with a skewed and illogical fundamental world view - perhaps not the best choice for a person who's to influence your life greatly.

----------


## Original Poster

The only real requirement to be president is to win a popularity contest.  Wealthy people are more important than poor people.

That's why I await the day government is not necessary and everything becomes automated.

----------


## tkdyo

> I think that acting competently as a politician requires a basic understanding of human nature and the social sciences. If you believe humans in their current form were put on earth some 5000 years ago, you are lacking this basic understanding and it is impossible for you to understand any of the social sciences and humanities properly because you are oblivious to the guiding principle that made humans what they are today - evolution.
> 
> That's why I always say it's ridiculous to think you can just disconnect a person's religious beliefs from any of their personal traits. To the contrary, whether or not and to what extent a person is religious is incredibly important to who that person is - which is why it's important for politicians. Otherwise you are falling into the trap of letting the label "religious" fool you into thinking you need to treat those aspects differently than any other - thereby ignoring the fact that you are still essentially looking at a deluded person with a skewed and illogical fundamental world view - perhaps not the best choice for a person who's to influence your life greatly.




It seems pretty obvious to me that his view on religion has jack shit to do with what he votes for and against in office.  

It is very easy to separate him from his religion for office for two very big reasons:

1.  He considers separation of church and state a high priority
2.  He is not a typical fundie anyway(stem-cells, gay rights, etc.)

So apparently we should just have a scientist as our pres because they would be able to come up with better plans that RP right?

----------


## linxx

i think it doesn't matter a bit! he looks black right? watch roots! that in its own should tell you what an amazing thing it is to have a president that is even "half black". he has come a hell of a long way, no one should try to make it seem like he's done less than he has.

----------


## Descensus

> Oh Ron...
> 
> ~



I'm late, but...No where in that video did he say it was a "lie", only that he didn't accept it.

----------


## Xei

Which is completely different, obviously.

----------


## Descensus

> Which is completely different, obviously.



So because he believes in God, like billions of other religious people, he thinks it a lie?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Which is completely different, obviously.



He might think it is an honest mistake.

----------


## Supremem

Calvin Hill is NOT Bi-racial at all. He may be bi-ethnic (within the African-diaspora), but he's all black....and his mother IS NOT white. Get your facts straight.

----------


## Rakjavik

> Calvin Hill is NOT Bi-racial at all. He may be bi-ethnic (within the African-diaspora), but he's all black....and his mother IS NOT white. Get your facts straight.



You rezzed a two month old topic, to make your first post, about whether some football player was bi-racial?  ::hrm::

----------


## SpecialInterests

sadly most americans think it's like some giant fuckin revolution that theres a half black man "in charge" if you want to call it that. To me, totally insignificant.

----------


## LucidDreamGod

I think the significence of it has to do with how poorly black people were treated even 50 years ago. 

I get why people want to say its insignificant, they want to feel like their not judging anyone by their race, and want to ignore the whole race deal. And thats great. But your just completely ignoring the changes in society that america has made toward tolerance in such a short time. Its like a kid who used to be at the bottom of the class and fails every class, who suddenly one day becomes super smart and his teachers ignore the fact that he made such a big leap. (I'm speaking of social statues ofcourse, and not intellegence in blacks, this is only to draw an analogy).

----------


## SpecialInterests

> I think the significence of it has to do with how poorly black people were treated even 50 years ago. 
> 
> I get why people want to say its insignificant, they want to feel like their not judging anyone by their race, and want to ignore the whole race deal. And thats great. But your just completely ignoring the changes in society that america has made toward tolerance in such a short time. Its like a kid who used to be at the bottom of the class and fails every class, who suddenly one day becomes super smart and his teachers ignore the fact that he made such a big leap. (I'm speaking of social statues ofcourse, and not intellegence in blacks, this is only to draw an analogy).



But by stating how badly black people were treated 50 years ago you yourself are judging people by their race. You see, I don't think of it as "how badly we treated black people." I think of it as how bad we treated _ourselves_. We're all the same people. We're all humans - we did it to _ourselves_.

Besides, having a half black president doesn't show any significant leap in society to me. Some people think of it as an end or a step to end racism and prejudice. It's all bullshit. It's to create to illusion that society is advancing. It's not. It's staying exactly the same.

----------


## Universal Mind

> But by stating how badly black people were treated 50 years ago you yourself are judging people by their race. You see, I don't think of it as "how badly we treated black people." I think of it as how bad we treated _ourselves_. We're all the same people. We're all humans - we did it to _ourselves_.



As far as I'm concerned, it is not a matter of "we".  I didn't do it.

----------


## Man of Shred

all racial arguments aside... What has the president done so far? anything positive besides talk?

----------


## The Cusp

> all racial arguments aside... What has the president done so far? anything positive besides talk?



Obama would make the _best_ late night talk show host.

----------


## Man of Shred

> Obama would make the _best_ late night talk show host.




 I agree but, has he actually done anything?

----------


## Emi Chan

> I agree but, has he actually done anything?



Frozen salaries for top White House staff members. This is a largely symbolic act, but might be an important one. 

Set a deadline for the closing of Guantanimo. Some of his supporters would say this is a great thing because they believe it operates as something from the Dark Ages. Others believe this characterization to not be true, and that no plan will be put place to determine what to do with the prisoners. Time will tell. 

Fast-tracked the process to apply new fuel standards to 2011 car models AND initiated steps to allow California to set its own standards for auto emissions that are stricter than that of the Federal government. Again, this is a measure that some of his supporters hail as a grand step forward, while his detractors point out that it could provide an additional severe drag on the economy, especially in car manufacturing areas. 

Signed a detailed executive order to ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. 

Asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq. 

Signed an executive order that restored a 30-day timeframe for former presidents to review records before they are released. It also eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews. 

Signed an executive order that requires that appointees sign forms saying that they were not hired because of political affiliations or contributions. This is far from an unbeatable measure, but is an important early step towards cleaning up governmental hiring policies. It is easier to prove someone lied when their signature is right next to the statement in question. 

Signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists and banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. Promptly made the order toothless by immediately granting a waiver to a former defense lobbyist. 

Lifted a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. 

Granted his first TV interview as president to Al-Arabiya, a channel described as a "voice of moderation" to the Middle East. His supporters call this a very smart move to help angered nations and groups feel a bit less cast aside, and let them know that they need not resort to violence to be made a part of the world discussion. Detractors point out that this is the type of thing Neville Chamberlain would have done, though a TV interview and "the Munch Agreement" are leagues apart. 

And that's was during his first week in office. The rest will definately take time, you can't expect changes to occur overnight. It's going to be years before this country becomes restabilized.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> As far as I'm concerned, it is not a matter of "we".  I didn't do it.



If I see a bear rip a small child in half, I think it's safe to say that bears are viscous murderers. Pretty safe conclusion. This is us man, humans. We did this. We're in it together.

----------


## Universal Mind

> If I see a bear rip a small child in half, I think it's safe to say that bears are viscous murderers. Pretty safe conclusion. This is us man, humans. We did this. We're in it together.



No, I did not do it.  I am not going to take blame for something I did not do.  The rotten people you are talking about had opposition, including white opposition, which further suggests that it is not fair to blame all humans or all white people.  

If a bear rips up a kid, it is not the fault of other bears.  It is only the fault of that one bear.  However, I will probably be weary of bears after seeing that, but that is because my emotions would be a bit hysterical and because there is not that much diversity in the bear population.  Humans are extremely diverse and completely individualized.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> No, I did not do it.  I am not going to take blame for something I did not do.  The rotten people you are talking about had opposition, including white opposition, which further suggests that it is not fair to blame all humans or all white people.  
> 
> If a bear rips up a kid, it is not the fault of other bears.  It is only the fault of that one bear.  However, I will probably be weary of bears after seeing that, but that is because my emotions would be a bit hysterical and because there is not that much diversity in the bear population.  Humans are extremely diverse and completely individualized.



Alright. I'll take that. Personally I still say that _humans_ did this to themselves rather than talk about how the whites did it to the blacks almost like they're a different species altogether. We all have common ancestors. All humans we're originally black we migrated from africa. That's where it all started. I look at a situation like slavery and just think of what beasts humans really were- and still are for that matter.
I'm not taking personal blame for the events that occured, but I do blame humans and human philosophy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Alright. I'll take that. Personally I still say that _humans_ did this to themselves rather than talk about how the whites did it to the blacks almost like they're a different species altogether. We all have common ancestors. All humans we're originally black we migrated from africa. That's where it all started. I look at a situation like slavery and just think of what beasts humans really were- and still are for that matter.
> I'm not taking personal blame for the events that occured, but I do blame humans and human philosophy.



I agree with your point that stuff like slavery should suggest how evil too many humans are and not how a race is.  Humans, period, have done a lot of really messed up stuff throughout history.  Every continent has had its share of large scale genocide and slavery, except maybe Antarctica.  The problem is evil individuals, not any race.  When a race gets blamed, people start thinking of races as single individuals with one mind, and it results in nothing but unnecessary trouble.

----------


## Xaqaria

> I think that acting competently as a politician requires a basic understanding of human nature and the social sciences. If you believe humans in their current form were put on earth some 5000 years ago, you are lacking this basic understanding and it is impossible for you to understand any of the social sciences and humanities properly because you are oblivious to the guiding principle that made humans what they are today - evolution.
> 
> That's why I always say it's ridiculous to think you can just disconnect a person's religious beliefs from any of their personal traits. To the contrary, whether or not and to what extent a person is religious is incredibly important to who that person is - which is why it's important for politicians. Otherwise you are falling into the trap of letting the label "religious" fool you into thinking you need to treat those aspects differently than any other - thereby ignoring the fact that you are still essentially looking at a deluded person with a skewed and illogical fundamental world view - perhaps not the best choice for a person who's to influence your life greatly.



Saying that a religious person cannot understand social sciences and therefore shouldn't be allowed to govern is almost exactly the same as saying that a non-religious person cannot understand ethics and therefore should not be allowed to govern.

----------

