I just can't wait the day when we inaguruate him and the disappointment starts for the Obamafans when they actually have to go to a sodamachine to get a CHANGE (what you naivly believe in). Don't get me wrong, he is full of changes:

- I want my kids interviewed, er... it was a bad idea
- I am for public founding of the candidates, err.. I can rise more money on my own
- decriminalization of marihuana
- etc.etc.

The dude is a REAL politican, changing his views according to whom he is talking to. Don't get me wrong, he is better than McBush, but change, you are not going to get.

And let's get it straight for the last time: if your mother is white, you are NOT black. The correct word is MULATTO...

He is black, he does represent significant change, and he does want to get elected...duh. Upset that he can anticipate the con smear machine? He's a fucking political genius.

I don't think he will get elected. I'm afraid there is a reason it's called the white house. I'd like to think that we grown beyond racism but,,,

He is black,

Not more than Halle Berry, wait a minute, she is also a mulatto...

he does represent significant change,

What? That he can put a sentence together without screwing up basic English words? Wait until his policies start.

Have you seen his "cabinet"? A blast from the past....

He is black, he does represent significant change, and he does want to get elected...duh. Upset that he can anticipate the con smear machine? He's a fucking political genius.

He is not black, and the fact he claims he is shows how far a certain social pendulum has swung.

That is, years ago, if a person had even a drop of black blood in them they were dubbed "black" and treated according to the social morals of that time. In that climate, people hid or didn't comment on such ethinicity. Contrast that attitude with mixed ethnics like Obama and Tiger Woods, men who automatically claim and accept the black idenitity.

He is not black, and the fact he claims he is shows how far a certain social pendulum has swung. Are you seriously asserting that Obama could have claimed to be white, in US public life?

Tiger Woods spent a few years trying to claim he was not black, and didn't get very far - was ridiculed, even, for the attempt.

Upset that he can anticipate the con smear machine? He's a fucking political genius.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/bingo1.jpg

Are you seriously asserting that Obama could have claimed to be white, in US public life?

Tiger Woods spent a few years trying to claim he was not black, and didn't get very far - was ridiculed, even, for the attempt.

Yes, when Oprah asked Tiger about his nationality, he said that he was "American-Malaysian". I applaud him for it, being that his dad is American and his mother is Malaysian. I think the term African American is becoming out dated.

Are you seriously asserting that Obama could have claimed to be white,

Now, but he could have claimed (correctly) of being MIXED race. A novel idea, I know...

Let's suppose he were more white looking than black, what would he claim then?

Now, but he could have claimed (correctly) of being MIXED race. A novel idea, I know.. That's the question - could he, and get away with it ?

Tiger tried, and mostly failed. And Tiger isn't in the public spotlight in the same way, where appearing to hide something can be fatal.

Probably most of the black people in the US, including the ones who were lynched, beaten to death near Obama's Chicago neighborhood in the late 60s, overcharged for cars and house loans and apartment rentals all through the 70s and 80s when Obama was growing up, etc, were and are "mixed race".
Let's suppose he were more white looking than black, what would he claim then? He is, some people think. It's possible he could pass now, maybe with a small nose job. He couldn't run for national office that way.

The point is that Obama was assigned his race as a child, by others. He's been black for as long as he's been conscious - on the playgrounds, in the schools, at work, he's been black. Not "mixed race", black. Black people don't get to choose their race, in the US.

Problem is the road to the White House is long and lined with lessons learned. Lessons like "Do whatever will make you more popular with the greatest base of voters". Uninformed people who care about lapel pins are a much bigger voting block than people who understand and care about the real issues. Ron Paul tried to address the issues honestly and directly, and look where it got him.

A broken system can't produce anything but garbage.

Are you seriously asserting that Obama could have claimed to be white, in US public life?

No.

Tiger Woods spent a few years trying to claim he was not black, and didn't get very far - was ridiculed, even, for the attempt.

He did, and I applaud him for his honesty and accuracy. What interests me is the phenomena that culturally classified him as "black," with little or nor thought to what he thought or what he biologically is. The same thing has happened with Obama.

What interests me is the phenomena that culturally classified him as "black," with little or nor thought to what he thought or what he biologically is. The same thing has happened with Obama. SAM had a thread on it, with the technical term.

The basic situation is that the US is a deeply racist country still; that the effects of racially based slavery still found as late as WWII, and the Jim Crow laws not repealed until the late 60s, and the tolerated levels of violence governing the lives of black people flagrantly through the 70s and 80s, did not just magically vanish one day in 1995 or whenever.

The US is racially polarized, right now. And black is the low racial designation, on that totem pole, and therefore the default designation.

Obama is not black because he claims to be black. He has no choice in the matter.

Now, but he could have claimed (correctly) of being MIXED race. A novel idea, I know...

Let's suppose he were more white looking than black, what would he claim then?

Here's another interesting story regarding this Issue. Halle Berry said that when she was growing up, she wanted to be viewed as Bi-racial, not as a Black or a White person. However, her mother said that society isn't going to afford you the luxury of choosing. She said society will view you as a Black Woman. So I'm going to raise you as a Black Woman. This was her White mother who told her this. Society treats the term White as being part of a *full blooded* European fraternity, that if you have one drop of something else, you're automatically excluded from it. In reality, Barack is more White then he is Black, but unfortunately society won't allow him to be.

Black people don't get to choose their race, in the US.

I understand nevertheless he grew up in Hawaii with its Japanese and hawaiian population so it wasn't like Chicago there and for me he will always be a mulatto and not the first black president...

i think the whole problem is that people can't see grey (mulatto) just black and white, there are no shades of race for them...

It would be interesting to see if a mixed race serial killer got caught and who would claim him as theirs...

SAM had a thread on it, with the technical term.


Yeah, hypermiling, I think...

It would be interesting to see if a mixed race serial killer got caught and who would claim him as theirs... That's happened. They are assigned the lowest status race possible given their skin color and features.

Once again, it's not a matter of "claiming". The dominant ethnicity assigns the race, by consensus.

Since that is the only operational definition of "race" possible (there is no genetic or other more objective means of classification), that is in fact the person's race.

By the way this thread is more about Obama's not being a real cange, than his skincolor. Here is a good summary:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/

I just can't wait the day when we inaguruate him and the disappointment starts for the Obamafans when they actually have to go to a sodamachine to get a CHANGE (what you naivly believe in). Don't get me wrong, he is full of changes ....

.... The dude is a REAL politican, changing his views according to whom he is talking to. Don't get me wrong, he is better than McBush, but change, you are not going to get.

Certainly, there will be plenty of disappointed young activists and voters, but that happens anyway. You might be overestimating the disenchantment that is about to sweep the newest generation of voters.

After all, the only difference between this pending letdown and any other is that it's Obama.

The Walsh article you refer to has a pretty good perspective—

I actually have some sympathy for Obama. He was never the great progressive savior that his fans either thought he was, or peddled to their readers. While Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas and Tom Hayden were hyping him as the progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, Obama was getting away with backing a healthcare bill less progressive than Clinton's, adopting GOP talking points on the Social Security "crisis" and double-talking on NAFTA. So why shouldn't he think his "friends on the left" will put up with his abandoning other progressive causes?

I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep. While we're railing about Obama's craven vote on FISA -- rightfully; Glenn Greenwald is a hero for his work on this topic -- McCain was outdoing Dick Cheney with neocon crazy talk, warning that Iran's test of nine old missiles we already knew they had increases the chances of a "second Holocaust." Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to.

(Walsh (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/index.html))

—but she's hardly the first to make the general point. Paul Krugman, over at the New York Times has been a consistent Obama critic and a self-proclaimed liberal; Walsh's "heroic" Salon counterpart Glenn Greenwald has agonized over Obama in much the same fashion, digging in about the FISA vote and other concessions to conservatives while finding no viable alternative in McCain. David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html) wrote a column last month for the New York Times that didn't mince words:

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

(Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html))

And last week, even I managed to unload some of my concerns (The challenges facing the next president do not make fertile ground for fundamental change. Certainly, in the litany of woes facing Americans we might find the seeds to germinate amid the rot, but therein lies part of the choice. If, as critics claim, a McCain presidency would merely continue Bush policies, such fundamental change might become necessary in order to save the republic, but that route would be an awfully risky gamble played for incredibly high stakes. Obama, in claiming change, begs the question of what kind of change Americans want. But the question of how much change we can, as a nation, handle seems nearly moot. We will celebrate each drop of dignity restored to the political process even though our thirst remains. We will cheer a changing trend in energy costs even though we cannot realistically expect great declines. And we will sleep more comfortably by a smarter approach to terrorism and foreign policy even though threats and confounding obstacles still remain. If we expect in Obama a messiah of the American Dream, we will be sorely disappointed. If we propose the beginnings of a recovery, and significant progress in the rehabilitation of our nation, we can at least greet each new day with hope, and hold our president to a realistic, attainable standard.

This is not surrender. We cannot achieve our every ideal in the next four years. But we would be so much worse off if we somehow forgot them ....[/quote]

In truth, the lengthy blog post started out as a piece intended for one of our discussions here, but I decided to post it elsewhere, since I could predict the reaction of my Sciforums' neighbors. (It just didn't seem worth the exercise in futility that comes with watching some folks try to prove their intelligence by complaining about the length of what I write.)

To the other, it's a lonely feeling when the expectation of schedenfreude is all you've got left. It's not like anyone can take an "I told you so" joy in the Bush wartime debacles, but I do recall getting an afternoon's worth of smiles out of reports as early as March or April, 2005, at how Republicans were frustrated with President Bush. After all that blind, rabid faith in order to stop Kerry, it only took a couple of months after inauguration for the party to start to turn on Bush. All I could think at the time was, "What did you think was going to happen? This is what you wanted."

And maybe we'll have a similar moment sometime next year with President Obama. But where Bush was a silver-spoon brat and a business-sector failure, Obama has done time as a professor of constitutional law, and headed the Harvard Law Review. While he will certainly be able to spin various political arguments, one thing he won't be able to do is play stupid the way Bush has. That in itself will be a refreshing change.

And maybe Obama's talent for creating a sense of hope will only lead to greater heartbreak if he proves an absolute failure, but in the meantime, people are clamoring to support him because, for the first time in years, they aren't simply numb.

That hope itself comes with certain risks is no reason to live without it. After the hopeless bumbling of the last eight years, it may simply be that Americans want to feel again, to know they're alive and believe they're real. We are a stronger nation and a better people when we do.
____________________

Notes:

Walsh, Joan. "Betrayed by Obama". Salon.com. July 10, 2008. [url]http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/index.html

Brooks, David. "The Two Obamas". New York Times. June 20, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html

I just can't wait the day when we inaguruate him and the disappointment starts for the Obamafans when they actually have to go to a sodamachine to get a CHANGE (what you naivly believe in). Don't get me wrong, he is full of changes:

- I want my kids interviewed, er... it was a bad idea
- I am for public founding of the candidates, err.. I can rise more money on my own
- decriminalization of marihuana
- etc.etc.

The dude is a REAL politican, changing his views according to whom he is talking to. Don't get me wrong, he is better than McBush, but change, you are not going to get.

And let's get it straight for the last time: if your mother is white, you are NOT black. The correct word is MULATTO...


Per the one drop rule you are black, it doesn't matter how much whiteness you have. I have great grandmothers who are technically only 25%, but during Jim Crow they were considered black. One was able to pass, moved up north, and died a white women, but if she had stayed in the South she would have been black. Refer to the case of Susie Guillory Phipps.

And the term for a bi-racial person is not mulatto. Many find the word offensive, as it refers to a mule.

He is not black, and the fact he claims he is shows how far a certain social pendulum has swung.

That is, years ago, if a person had even a drop of black blood in them they were dubbed "black" and treated according to the social morals of that time. In that climate, people hid or didn't comment on such ethinicity. Contrast that attitude with mixed ethnics like Obama and Tiger Woods, men who automatically claim and accept the black idenitity.
The problem is this. Most black american with slave ancestry are mixed, we can't all proclaim to be bi-racial. It would be too confusing. American classification of race is very strange.

Now, but he could have claimed (correctly) of being MIXED race. A novel idea, I know...

Let's suppose he were more white looking than black, what would he claim then?
Black

That's the question - could he, and get away with it ?

Tiger tried, and mostly failed. And Tiger isn't in the public spotlight in the same way, where appearing to hide something can be fatal.

Probably most of the black people in the US, including the ones who were lynched, beaten to death near Obama's Chicago neighborhood in the late 60s, overcharged for cars and house loans and apartment rentals all through the 70s and 80s when Obama was growing up, etc, were and are "mixed race".
He is, some people think. It's possible he could pass now, maybe with a small nose job. He couldn't run for national office that way.

The point is that Obama was assigned his race as a child, by others. He's been black for as long as he's been conscious - on the playgrounds, in the schools, at work, he's been black. Not "mixed race", black. Black people don't get to choose their race, in the US.
Very true. Either you are or you aren't. I am black, my husband is white, our children even though technically bi-racial will be treated as black by American society. That is just the way America is.

Problem is the road to the White House is long and lined with lessons learned. Lessons like "Do whatever will make you more popular with the greatest base of voters". Uninformed people who care about lapel pins are a much bigger voting block than people who understand and care about the real issues. Ron Paul tried to address the issues honestly and directly, and look where it got him.

A broken system can't produce anything but garbage.
Ron Paul is a known racist. His problem is willing to take money from racist organizations and having racist sentiment. He came along a the wrong election. A woman and black (oops bi-racial) candidate were seriously being considered really for the 1st time in American history, not just as a novel or "trendy" ideal, he wouldn't have lasted.

One was able to pass, moved up north, and died a white women,

Good point, I always thought if you can get away with it, you are what you think you are. Now Obama might can not get away with this...

And the term for a bi-racial person is not mulatto. Many find the word offensive, as it refers to a mule.

Sorry but it is. It might be not the most CP word, but describing a black-white mixed person mulatto is the correct term. If one is asian-black or asian-white or other mix, there are also terms for that...

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/colonial/racial-classiications.jpg

Go to Wikipedia, type in mulatto. The first person shown as an example is, (you guessed it right) Obama. Second is Halle Berry.

Ron Paul is a known racist. His problem is willing to take money from racist organizations and having racist sentiment. He came along a the wrong election. A woman and black (oops bi-racial) candidate were seriously being considered really for the 1st time in American history, not just as a novel or "trendy" ideal, he wouldn't have lasted.

You got it half right, half wrong. Show me one thing he personally wrote where he expresses these racist sentiments you claim. His problem (aside from having his non-mainstream views) was incompetence at a managerial level.

I don't think he's a racist at all, and neither will anyone who's actually paid attention to him.

You got it half right, half wrong. Show me one thing he personally wrote where he expresses these racist sentiments you claim. His problem (aside from having his non-mainstream views) was incompetence at a managerial level.

I don't think he's a racist at all, and neither will anyone who's actually paid attention to him.
He didn't have to, he had people write his views on his behalf. If he can't manage a newsletter, how can he manage a country?

Good point, I always thought if you can get away with it, you are what you think you are. Now Obama might can not get away with this...



Sorry but it is. It might be not the most CP word, but describing a black-white mixed person mulatto is the correct term. If one is asian-black or asian-white or other mix, there are also terms for that...

Go to Wikipedia, type in mulatto. The first person shown as an example is, (you guessed it right) Obama. Second is Halle Berry.
If she had gotten caught and discovered she had black blood, she would have been humiliated and in some cases, killed.

Many biracials do not feel the term "mulatto" is flattering, much like many african americans would not prefer the terms "negro" or "negar" (yes the perceived origins of the infamous n-word), even though at one time, both words were considered the norm and of acceptable use.

It is outdated vernacular, which is now, at least to some, deemed offensive.

He didn't have to, he had people write his views on his behalf. If he can't manage a newsletter, how can he manage a country?

You're switching topics from his supposed racism to his managerial skills. Let's stick to the racist bit for now. The story we're given is that he was only loosely affiliated with the newsletters, and that he had nothing to do with the racist sentiments. Given material that he's written over the years that explicitly rejects racism, I'm willing to believe that. Given that he's the only candidate who's pointing out how much the drug war disproportionately hurts minorities, I'm willing to accept that.

And to his managerial skills, I don't think he could manage a country. I was seduced more by his ideas than by his actual campaigning. There were problems and missteps almost at a Goldwater-campaign level, although not quite that bad. And that newsletter fiasco should never have happened.

And let's get it straight for the last time: if your mother is white, you are NOT black. The correct word is MULATTO...

By that definition, when you consider the breeding that occurred between masters and slaves, almost noone in America is black.

He is not black, and the fact he claims he is shows how far a certain social pendulum has swung.

That is, years ago, if a person had even a drop of black blood in them they were dubbed "black" and treated according to the social morals of that time. In that climate, people hid or didn't comment on such ethinicity. Contrast that attitude with mixed ethnics like Obama and Tiger Woods, men who automatically claim and accept the black idenitity.

You're switching topics from his supposed racism to his managerial skills. Let's stick to the racist bit for now. The story we're given is that he was only loosely affiliated with the newsletters, and that he had nothing to do with the racist sentiments. Given material that he's written over the years that explicitly rejects racism, I'm willing to believe that. Given that he's the only candidate who's pointing out how much the drug war disproportionately hurts minorities, I'm willing to accept that.

And to his managerial skills, I don't think he could manage a country. I was seduced more by his ideas than by his actual campaigning. There were problems and missteps almost at a Goldwater-campaign level, although not quite that bad. And that newsletter fiasco should never have happened.

They were called the Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul's Political Report, and The Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. How loosely associated was he?

Being that I am a Texan, and knowing who he represents. Lake Jackson, TX is not a city of racial harmony. It is overwhelmingly white, and I would say many of the residents would love to keep it that way, and some have fought for several decades to keep it that way.

Here is a blog that typically represents the demographic if Lake Jackson, TX lakejacksonnews.blogspot.com

Very loosely associated. He stupidly lent his name out without doing any proper managing or editing. Again, the question is how do you reconcile what was written in those newsletters with the rest of what he's written and said over the years? This was a man who when asked considered a black economist, Walter Williams, to be his running mate.

As to your Lake Jackson comment, I don't know enough about the community to really say anything. I'll only point out that a community being overwhelmingly white isn't necessarily a bad thing, that you can always have a few bad apples, and that just because you claim one hateful blog represents most of the Lake Jackson's residents doesn't make it true. You'd need to provide something more credible.

We are going off topic though, I'm going to ask a mod to move this to a new thread.

By that definition, when you consider the breeding that occurred between masters and slaves, almost noone in America is black.

good point, but there is a "slight" difference between 50% (mother) or 1/16th white.(great-great-grandpa)
If your mother is white, you are not black, by definition. What society thinks of you is another question....

Anyway, sticking to the topic, I haven't heard any Obamafans defending his policy changes...The whole point of this thread is just a warning not to build too much expectations in case he gets elected, because it will end in even bigger disappointment.

Look at W. I had no expectations whatsoever and he still underperformed it...

You got it half right, half wrong. Show me one thing he personally wrote where he expresses these racist sentiments you claim. His problem (aside from having his non-mainstream views) was incompetence at a managerial level.

I don't think he's a racist at all, and neither will anyone who's actually paid attention to him.

The fact that those news articles printed his name as the author proved that he wrote them. Ron Paul has failed to provide the evidence to support his convenient denial of never writing them. Ron Paul fits the profile of the typical southern racist. He hates Abraham Lincoln, he takes money and photo's with the leader of **********.org, and he supports neo-confederate authors. He's anti federal government, anti-immigration, etc.

By that definition, when you consider the breeding that occurred between masters and slaves, almost noone in America is black.

According to a recent study, about 30% of all White Americans, approximately 66 million people, have between 2 and 20% of Native American or African admixture with an exact median of 2.3%, which means the median admixture percentage for all White population of the United State is 0.69.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American

Wow, so 1/3 of European Americans are 20% Black or Native American, amazing!

I just don't know how someone can be loosely associated with periodicals that have their name plastered on them. I also want to know how having a black economist as a running mate would prove he wasn't racist. Strom Thurmond had a biracial child with a black woman, but he was hardly a champion of black issues.

It also doesn't help he is willing to take campaign money from Don Black, the head of **********. I would hardly think he would need the $500, but he didn't seem to be bothered by it.

good point, but there is a "slight" difference between 50% (mother) or 1/16th white.(great-great-grandpa)
If your mother is white, you are not black, by definition. What society thinks of you is another question....

Anyway, sticking to the topic, I haven't heard any Obamafans defending his policy changes...The whole point of this thread is just a warning not to build too much expectations in case he gets elected, because it will end in even bigger disappointment.

Look at W. I had no expectations whatsoever and he still underperformed it...
The problem is most African Americans just can't count great grandpa and leave it alone. Most of us are made up of people who are of varying degrees of mixed race. As I mentioned before I had relatives that were majority white and considered black under racial purity laws. When do we draw the line on when someone is no longer black, but white? There are many blacks, with two black parents who come out looking white as the driven snow. Green and hazel eyes are common place within the black community. Blonde, light brown hair, and even red hair isn't unheard of either. Recessive genes can be kind of strong.

I will definitely agree that Obama will not bring a major change in government. With the state of things looking at the economy and oil prices, Obama might be the next Jimmy Carter.

The fact that those news articles printed his name as the author proved that he wrote them. Ron Paul has failed to provide the evidence to support his convenient denial of never writing them. Ron Paul fits the profile of the typical southern racist. He hates Abraham Lincoln, he takes money and photo's with the leader of **********.org, and he supports neo-confederate authors. He's anti federal government, anti-immigration, etc.

Geez, I thought we dealt with your spin already months ago.

1. The picture with the leader of ********** was taken after a debate when supporters tend to go up to their candidate and take photos with them. It's not as if Paul sought out this guy and told him he wanted a photo. That could be me, or any other Paul supporter in that picture.

2. Your belief that he's anti-immigration stems from his poor managerial skills and the campaign releasing a stupid anti-immigration ad. The only thing he is against is illegal immigration at the moment because of Friedman's reasoning: "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."

3. We've had this discussion on the ********** money before, better Paul spend it on his campaign than some racist on whatever. And again, he didn't actively seek out the ********** donation, it came to him. Would returning the money be good politics? Sure. But let's be honest, it doesn't make any sense for the cash to be back in the racist's hands when it could be spent for a good cause.

4. He doesn't like any president who increases the power of the federal government. Lincoln did just that, and to quite an extent. If he had done some of those things today, we would be calling him a criminal.

5. For someone who rails against right wing talk show hosts who use inflammatory language to appeal to emotion, you're one to talk. What he supports about "neo-confederate" authors is their support for state's rights.

6. Lysander Spooner, one of the more famous abolitionists of the civil rights era, completely agreed with Paul on 4 and 5. Trying to twist what is a discussion on what the government can or can't do into one that puts a person into either a racist or non-racist group is dishonest and more reminiscent of O'Reilly/Hannity. I expect better from someone who says he's above that crap.

7. No one has yet to explain how Paul's anti-racist words and talk over the years makes sense with the racism of the newsletters. On one hand you have rhetoric which spans years and years, and on the other you have newsletters which he didn't author that took place over a relatively small period of time. Which should be given more weight?

I just don't know how someone can be loosely associated with periodicals that have their name plastered on them. I also want to know how having a black economist as a running mate would prove he wasn't racist. Strom Thurmond had a biracial child with a black woman, but he was hardly a champion of black issues.

It also doesn't help he is willing to take campaign money from Don Black, the head of **********. I would hardly think he would need the $500, but he didn't seem to be bothered by it.

As I mentioned, he stupidly lent his name out to various publications. And the difference between Paul and Thurmond is that Thurmond kept his relationship a secret because he was actively promoting a racist agenda. Compare that to Paul who made the declaration of a black VP candidly and publicaly. Would it make sense for someone who is catering to racist interests, or who is racist himself, to do such a thing?

And I addressed the ********** money in my previous post.

EDIT: And to add some context, consider the person who's defending this guy. I'm an immigrant, brown skinned South Asian with a Muslim first name (although atheist myself). If Paul really was/is how you're describing him, I certainly wouldn't be a supporter.

One was able to pass, moved up north, and died a white women,
”
Good point, I always thought if you can get away with it, you are what you think you are. Now Obama might can not get away with this... The fact that "getting away with it" is an ordinary description of such temerity si all you need to know.
If your mother is white, you are not black, by definition. What society thinks of you is another question.... There is no definition, other than what "society thinks of you". If US society thinks you are black, black is what you are in the US. Your mother could be Lithuanian or Kiowa, it would make no difference.
By the way this thread is more about Obama's not being a real cange, than his skincolor. Here is a good summary: What Obama represents to most of the people voting for him (not his ardent supporters, maybe) is the possibility of change. Just that. He's a gamble, taken to avoid a sure and disastrous loss. He seems at least articulate and intelligent, and with some demonstrated competence, and not immediately beholden to the usual suspects (oil, Israel, insurance, Pentagon). So the worst he will likely be is a moderate disappointment - not the public humiliation and pragmatic disaster we have been suffering, which is the worst likelihood from his opponents.

Geez, I thought we dealt with your spin already months ago.

1. The picture with the leader of ********** was taken after a debate when supporters tend to go up to their candidate and take photos with them. It's not as if Paul sought out this guy and told him he wanted a photo. That could be me, or any other Paul supporter in that picture.

2. Your belief that he's anti-immigration stems from his poor managerial skills and the campaign releasing a stupid anti-immigration ad. The only thing he is against is illegal immigration at the moment because of Friedman's reasoning: "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."

3. We've had this discussion on the ********** money before, better Paul spend it on his campaign than some racist on whatever. And again, he didn't actively seek out the ********** donation, it came to him. Would returning the money be good politics? Sure. But let's be honest, it doesn't make any sense for the cash to be back in the racist's hands when it could be spent for a good cause.

4. He doesn't like any president who increases the power of the federal government. Lincoln did just that, and to quite an extent. If he had done some of those things today, we would be calling him a criminal.

5. For someone who rails against right wing talk show hosts who use inflammatory language to appeal to emotion, you're one to talk. What he supports about "neo-confederate" authors is their support for state's rights.

6. Lysander Spooner, one of the more famous abolitionists of the civil rights era, completely agreed with Paul on 4 and 5. Trying to twist what is a discussion on what the government can or can't do into one that puts a person into either a racist or non-racist group is dishonest and more reminiscent of O'Reilly/Hannity. I expect better from someone who says he's above that crap.

7. No one has yet to explain how Paul's anti-racist words and talk over the years makes sense with the racism of the newsletters. On one hand you have rhetoric which spans years and years, and on the other you have newsletters which he didn't author that took place over a relatively small period of time. Which should be given more weight?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Module8.gif

Ah, turns out you're not so different from the Hannity/O'Reilly crowd after all. :rolleyes:

Guys, do you mind if I ask you to take the Ron Paul shit to a separate thread? It is offtopic here and irrelevant to the Omaba discussion...

As I mentioned, he stupidly lent his name out to various publications. And the difference between Paul and Thurmond is that Thurmond kept his relationship a secret because he was actively promoting a racist agenda. Compare that to Paul who made the declaration of a black VP candidly and publicaly. Would it make sense for someone who is catering to racist interests, or who is racist himself, to do such a thing?

And I addressed the ********** money in my previous post.

EDIT: And to add some context, consider the person who's defending this guy. I'm an immigrant, brown skinned South Asian with a Muslim first name (although atheist myself). If Paul really was/is how you're describing him, I certainly wouldn't be a supporter.
I never said he was catering to racist interests, but he sure wasn't denouncing them either. Most racists that exist today don't proudly proclaim they are racist, they probably aren't even aware of their racism. It isn't PC. But given the history of Ron Paul newsletters, his willingness to knowingly accept money from neo nazi groups, and the fact that he remains silent on the issues of race within his own constituency (Lake Jackson, TX) speaks volumes that this is not the type of man I would say is a bastion of racial equality. I've known many people who claim to be my friends who hold racist thoughts. It doesn't expressly make them racists, but it does have me keep them at a distance and walk on eggshells with them. His endorsement or support for a black VP doesn't prove to me he isn't racist, just smart in that aspect of his campaign, given the other candidates running, namely a black (or biracial) and a woman.

Sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Guys, do you mind if I ask you to take the Ron Paul shit to a separate thread? It is offtopic here and irrelevant to the Omaba discussion...

Sorry, I PMd the mods to have our stuff moved over a few hours back. Just waiting for one of them to see it. I'll hold my future replies till the posts have been moved and a new thread made.

Ah, turns out you're not so different from the Hannity/O'Reilly crowd after all. :rolleyes:

^^^^^^^
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/oreilly.gif

There is no definition, other than what "society thinks of you".

Sure there are, legal or scientic definitions. No matter that society thinks of OJ as a killer, legally he is innocent.

If US society thinks you are black, black is what you are in the US.

What if society can not tell? What if you could go both ways??

What Obama represents to most of the people voting for him (not his ardent supporters, maybe) is the possibility of change.

I understand but big deal. In most elections change has been a rallying cry. Except a few years when economy was really good.

not immediately beholden to the usual suspects (oil, Israel, insurance, Pentagon).

Well, but that is my point, he is. Thus the warning and this thread...

So the worst he will likely be is a moderate disappointment - not the public humiliation and pragmatic disaster we have been suffering, which is the worst likelihood from his opponents.

Well, if that happens, we can wait another 50-80 years for another colored president. It is easier to fail higher expectations. The same with Hillary. Let's says she is the president and we go into a 3-4 years deep recession, there wouldn't be another women candidate for a long time, even although it isn't their fault...

She is a mulatto girl (white mother) who could get away with it, actually she looks way more white:

http://www.youthnoise.com/site/images/fitc/rbrb_1768.gif

Her story is interesting too:

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2523

Another one:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/07/24feature.html

"If it had been based on appearance, my sister would have been black, my brother Mexican, and me Jewish. Instead, my parents' decision arose out of the rising black power movement, which made identifying as black not a pseudoscientific rule but a conscious choice."

Sure there are, legal or scientic definitions. The legal ones are just "what society thinks". There is no scientific definition of any of the sociological races, AFAIK, aside from simply recording the sociological verdicts.
What if society can not tell? What if you could go both ways?? Then you can go either way, until found out - at which time you will be assigned to the lowest status race applicable.

The legal ones are just "what society thinks".

You are dense. Didn't I just give you an example with OJ to the contrary?

There is no scientific definition of any of the sociological races, AFAIK, aside from simply recording the sociological verdicts.

Get on with the times, dude. If you send a DNA sample in, for a little money you can have a complete scientic racial background for you. I know, technology....

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/ydna_intro_howto.php

Now for fun here is a woman, not very well know yet.First try to guess, then I will tell who she is:

http://tancred62.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/obamasis.jpg

"Here are a few select Q&As from the NYT:

Barack’s father was Kenyan, and yours was Indonesian. Your mom was what used to be called a freethinker, a white anthropologist from Wichita, Kan., who moved to Jakarta after her second marriage.
A:My mother was a courageous woman. And she had such tremendous love for life. She loved the natural world. She would wake us up in the middle of the night to go look at the moon. When I was a teenager, this was a source of great frustration because I wanted to sleep.
Q: Do you think of your brother as black?
A:Yes, because that is how he has named himself. Each of us has a right to name ourselves as we will.
Q: Do you think of yourself as white?
A:No. I’m half white, half Asian. I think of myself as hybrid. People usually think I’m Latina when they meet me. That’s what made me learn Spanish.
Q:That sort of culturally mixed identity was seen as an anomaly when you were growing up.
A:Of course, there was a time when that felt like unsteady terrain, and it made me feel vulnerable.
Q:You were ahead of the multicultural curve.
A:That’s one of the things our mother taught us. It can all belong to you. If you have sufficient love and respect for a part of the world, it can be a meaningful part of who you are, even if it wasn’t delivered at birth. "

You are dense. Didn't I just give you an example with OJ to the contrary? No, you didn't - OJ's race was never legally defined AFAIK, and if it had been it would have been according to "what society thinks", i.e. black or white, in the US.

If you send a DNA sample in, for a little money you can have a complete scientic racial background for you. No, you can't. The best you can get is a probability estimate for the geographical origins of your genetics - what race that makes you would then depend on what the society you belong to thinks about what you look and act like. Brazil might assign you a different race than Canada does, for example.

There is no scientific definition of the US sociological "black" race except recorded observation of "what society thinks".

No, you didn't - OJ's race

OK, I give up on you. It wasn't OJ's race the issue in the analogy, but his guilt or innocence. Nevermind, carry on...

P.S: If the DNA shows that you are 100% from the Congo, you are most likely not Chinese or white... :)
Also, certain Americans showing at least 25% native American DNA can qualify for government aids and special rights, so don't bullshit me that it can't count...

Switching back more on politics:

I have just ran into this article, criticizing Obama's Father's day speech:

http://counterpunch.org/gray07112008.html

It wasn't OJ's race the issue in the analogy, but his guilt or innocence. Since there is no such thing as OJ's legal race outside of "what society thinks", the analogy - as I pointed out - does not apply.

All you have to do is link to a scientific definition of a "black" race that is anything other than a documentation of what some society thinks. Why is that difficult ?

Meanwhile, is everybody sure that simply having a black man on TV representing the US will not make significant changes in the pursuit and success of US foreign policy ? Colin Powell's race was enormously important in selling the Iraq War, for example.

Are you guys really arguing over how many degrees of black Obama is? Should we start a flag pin thread too?

We already had one, I think...

Are you guys really arguing over how many degrees of black Obama is?

Nope. We all agreed he is 50%, but he dunks at 75%.... :)

If most Americans look at you and think you are black, then you might as well be 100% African, because that's how you will be treated.

Are you guys really arguing over how many degrees of black Obama is? No. We are arguing (eventually) over how much responsibility (and by inference, what motives) to assign to Obama in Obama's choice of racial self-identification.

"If it had been based on appearance, my sister would have been black, my brother Mexican, and me Jewish. Instead, my parents' decision arose out of the rising black power movement, which made identifying as black not a pseudoscientific rule but a conscious choice."


She looks black to me. A creole looking person.

No. We are arguing (eventually) over how much responsibility (and by inference, what motives) to assign to Obama in Obama's choice of racial self-identification.
That's practically what I just said.

This is an important issue why?

This is an important issue why?

Because some people want it to be.

Rather sad, all things considered. There's so much more going on in the world than this.

This is an important issue why? Ask them. I'd be perfectly happy to make ordinary, obvious observations and not have to actually argue for them.

If most Americans look at you and think you are black, then you might as well be 100% African, because that's how you will be treated.

True, but just because I am stupid looking I shouldn't let them get away to treat me like stupid.

She looks black to me. A creole looking person.

It was obvious from the interview that she is the halfsister of Barack, her father was Indonesian...

True, but just because I am stupid looking I shouldn't let them get away to treat me like stupid.



It was obvious from the interview that she is the halfsister of Barack, her father was Indonesian...

I didn't think that was Barack's sister. She is young to be his sister. The girl in the pic you posted. The one you said had a white mother, but black father.

She is a mulatto girl (white mother) who could get away with it, actually she looks way more white:

http://www.youthnoise.com/site/images/fitc/rbrb_1768.gif

Her story is interesting too:

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2523

Another one:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/07/24feature.html

"If it had been based on appearance, my sister would have been black, my brother Mexican, and me Jewish. Instead, my parents' decision arose out of the rising black power movement, which made identifying as black not a pseudoscientific rule but a conscious choice."

The woman in that photo is of less than half sub-Saharan African genetically. You can see this by looking at her.

Most African Americans in the USA are something like 70 percent African and 30 percent European (or other). African Americans are more likely to have a little Native American ancestry than White Americans do.

Most of the African American African ancestry is from West Africa. Obama's dad was from East Africa. East Africans look a little different from West Africans.

The big deal with Obama being black is that it seems that most white Americans no longer consider brown skin to disqualify a person from being worthy of a white person's trust and respect.

"acting black" whatever that means may still disqualify somebody from being trusted and respected by most whites.

Syzygys, I still don't understand what it is about Obama, and or whether he is black or Mulatto that you care about.

Syzygys, I still don't understand what it is about Obama, and or whether he is black or Mulatto that you care about.

The point of the thread is a warning against too much anticipations just in case he is going to get elected. It is like before a date, if you get your hopes up too high, your crash down is going to be more painful, if things don't go according to hopes. (most likely scenario)

The mulatto thingy is just because I like to call an apple an apple and not an orange... To be really the first black president I would want one with 75+% black ancestry, not 50%.

Meanwhile, it seems he's so perfect, he can't be made fun of . . .

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/15/america/15humor.php

Very good article summarizing the problems of Obama:

http://counterpunch.org/whitney07112008.html

Very good article summarizing the problems of Obama: The article buys into the standard authoritarian take - that the people who think Obama is a better bet than McCain (or Clinton before him) are buying into delusions as prescribed for them by these debunkers.

Rather than summarize the problems of Obama, the article attacks what it regards as the delusions of his supporters.

The only potentially interesting assertion was that Obama could be worse than McCain, from a typical Obama supporter's pov. Unfortunately, that assertion was not backed by anything, much less a point by point comparison with McCain.

"Obama's candidacy is over; kaput. He's already stated that he has no intention of stopping the war, so he has disqualified himself. That's his prerogative; no one put a gun to his head. His op-ed in Monday's New York Times just removes any lingering doubt about the matter. What Obama proposes is moving the central theater of operation from Iraq to Afghanistan. Big deal. Why is it more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than in Iraq?

It's not; which is why Obama must be defeated and the equivocating Democratic Party must be jettisoned altogether. The Democrats are a party of blood just like the Republicans, they're just more discreet about it. That's why people who are serious about ending the war have to support candidates outside the two-party charade. The Democrat/Republican duopoly will not deliver the goods; it's as simple as that. The point is to stop the killing, not to provide blind support for smooth-talking politicos who try to mask their real intentions. Obama made his choice, now he can suffer the consequences."

http://counterpunch.org/whitney07212008.html

I support our efforts in Afghanistan, as most Democrats do.

So what exactly are we doing in Aghanistan? That pipedream is so 2002.....

Initially, the US was burning out the terrorist haven from which the Sept. 11 attacks were planned and orchestrated. Now we're trying to finish off the Taliban and stabalize that nation so that it doesn't become a haven in the future.