Re: Are White people ready for a Black President?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
If, IF, Barack Obama wins, will the majority of White people be ok with it?I dunno. Alot, tons, of people i've met said no. I've seen all kinds of polls done at colleges, newspapers, the Internet, television the news, the radio, discussions saying that the majority of White people would not want Obama as president simply because he's Black. And that the whites that do vote for him do it cause he's half black. Or cause he looks safe.
Some people are saying that he might get assassinated if he becomes president. He's already received death threats by White people already. I dunno. He was already compared to JFK, or where they secretly alluding to his fate.
I know the KKK and nazi's are definitely fuming over this. Fact. And may be even planning something. Who knows.
I don't think he should be president. I mean, I wouldn't want him dying, for sure.But it is a question to white people.. Would you accept Obama as president regardless of skin color? Or not?
I know that last night the "over 65" crowd in Texas are the folks that put HillDog over the line. Lesson possibly being that in a predominatly white state age trumps reason, and I think the most likely explaination for this is racism. As for polls, I'm not sure I've heard of anything reporting white people are overhwelming concerned about his ethnicity.
However, the fact that you mention Nazis and the KKK as well as conspiacy involving his eventual assassination in the same breath as you question the willingness of "white people" implies that you don't make much of an effort to seperate those 2 groups. So, the idea behind the thread may have been a good one, but starting at around the 10th yeard line you started shitting all over your own good idea.
But, I knew the moment I heard Bill Clinton say that she had to win TX and Ohio to stay in the race, I was POSITIVE she'd win them and we'd have to listen to this shit for another 4 months.
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't start reading from the beginning, but my guess, this is another FoTN thread where he asks a question, while already having the conclusion that "White people are racist!"... am I correct?
My god, you are more intuitive then that hag who's always on Montel Williams! 😱
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
A small percentage. (of which have ever been elected probably in part due to skin color.)Also one of the reasons blacks don't really run for the highest offices is because they know whites won't vote for them cause of skin color. A run would be a lost cause; futile. Even if the candidate has all the values they have.
dont just pull stuff out your ass...go find out...come back and tell me how many
to my knowledge there has been 6...
Jesse Jackson
Shirley Chisolm
Lenora Fulani
Alan Keys
Carol Mosley Braun
Al Sharpton
none of which actually gave any serious attempt bar Jackson
it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with funding...if you dont have the cash to campaign...you dont win
and you dont get cash if people think you're not any good
Originally posted by jaden101
dont just pull stuff out your ass...go find out...come back and tell me how manyto my knowledge there has been 6...
Jesse Jackson
Shirley Chisolm
Lenora Fulani
Alan Keys
Carol Mosley Braun
Al Sharptonnone of which actually gave any serious attempt bar Jackson
it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with funding...if you dont have the cash to campaign...you dont win
and you dont get cash if people think you're not any good
I think your point is very good, but I was make of modification: people will not give you money if they don't believe you can win.
Originally posted by inimalist
what policy does obama have that would remove the market from the economy and replace it with government control? I'll admit I haven't seen him speak much, but his policies with health and education do not seem to expand government powers... He talks very positively about the free market...And no, on a global scale, I do not think it is flawed to say the democrats are not socialist. They might be progressive... But even then they would lag behind every single progressive movement in the world. To be honest, I don't think either party has enough philosophical perspective to be called anything, most just change their rhetoric in order to monopolize certain blocks of voters.
But ya, maybe I jumped the gun, but I wanted to circumvent that argument before it could even be made.
There was a report that Obama out of all the candidates, with his policies, was going to spend the most. I wish I could find the link to it dammit.
Oddly, there was a speech made where he blatanly rejected the free market approach to government.
Progressive is just a nice subsitute for laid-back socialism. It's mean more government. That's all I know need to know.
Originally posted by jaden101
dont just pull stuff out your ass...go find out...come back and tell me how manyto my knowledge there has been 6...
Jesse Jackson
Shirley Chisolm
Lenora Fulani
Alan Keys
Carol Mosley Braun
Al Sharptonnone of which actually gave any serious attempt bar Jackson
it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with funding...if you dont have the cash to campaign...you dont win
and you dont get cash if people think you're not any good
Victoria Woodhull and Frederick Douglas were candidates for president and vice-president in the 1870's.
And I still haven't heard what Ron Paul plans to do with the large amounts of money he's pulled in as a result of his campaign. He certainly doesn't seem to be campaigning with it.
Originally posted by BigRed
Looking at his ideas and voting record on Education, he wants more government involved in that. Still has government subsidies in healthcare. More government intervention with regards to foreign aid. The stimulous package is bothersome. More subsidies to homeowners. He's probably going to join Kyoto which scares me. More government spending on wasteful education about the dangers of sex.There was a report that Obama out of all the candidates, with his policies, was going to spend the most. I wish I could find the link to it dammit.
Oddly, there was a speech made where he blatanly rejected the free market approach to government.
Progressive is just a nice subsitute for laid-back socialism. It's mean more government. That's all I know need to know.
I'll take your word on the spending thing, though it surprises me a little. Seeing as all the Republican candidates want to stay at war in the middle east, I can't imagine him spending more than them (provided he actually does reduce troop levels, etc). I know I saw him give a speech at google praising the free market, but that may have just been to sway the audience he was speaking with.
I disagree that progressivism is anywhere related to socialism, and I also disagree that Obama or even the idea of more government involvement in certain areas constitutes either....
Maybe compared to no government, but for something like healthcare, obama is not in favor of fully social medicine, he just wants all insurance companies to offer the same protection and make sure that every citizen has medical coverage. That is neither socialist or progressive, as the fact that America has citizens who die from not being able to afford medical treatment is a relic and an embarrassment in a first world nation.
However, your last line denotes how you are using the term, which is to say, socialism to you is a term of moralistic slander and not about wage redistribution, economic equality and access to resources. When Obama starts talking about States rights to the profits from oil drilling, or about taking control of the auto industry to provide jobs, sure, then we can talk socialism....
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't start reading from the beginning, but my guess, this is another FoTN thread where he asks a question, while already having the conclusion that "White people are racist!"... am I correct?
lol correct..but you forgot: "All white people are racist..this is a racist statement about all white people but its not racist coming from me because im black and because its true..need stats? No stats are needed..its just true!"
Originally posted by inimalist
I'll take your word on the spending thing, though it surprises me a little. Seeing as all the Republican candidates want to stay at war in the middle east, I can't imagine him spending more than them (provided he actually does reduce troop levels, etc). I know I saw him give a speech at google praising the free market, but that may have just been to sway the audience he was speaking with.I disagree that progressivism is anywhere related to socialism, and I also disagree that Obama or even the idea of more government involvement in certain areas constitutes either....
Maybe compared to no government, but for something like healthcare, obama is not in favor of fully social medicine, he just wants all insurance companies to offer the same protection and make sure that every citizen has medical coverage. That is neither socialist or progressive, as the fact that America has citizens who die from not being able to afford medical treatment is a relic and an embarrassment in a first world nation.
However, your last line denotes how you are using the term, which is to say, socialism to you is a term of moralistic slander and not about wage redistribution, economic equality and access to resources. When Obama starts talking about States rights to the profits from oil drilling, or about taking control of the auto industry to provide jobs, sure, then we can talk socialism....
More government to me can be labled whatever you want. I just know it is bad and I don't like and I think it is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. Progressivism is a lot about "social equality" and "social justice". They also tend to support governmental involvement with the economy (as we see with these packages -- although the Republicans also support it oddly enough).