[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
he is in fact African.
Now even black posters are saying he was not born in the United States. Thank you for recognizing that.
Thanks…but no thanks. Your ignorance is truly “admiring”…that entire post shows my appreciation for those like you.
I admire Obama. He used the idiots in Black Liberation Theology, gave lip service to all the Left wing morons, got the Chicago Machine (which is corrupt beyond words) to back him (with appropriate kickbacks from the Illinois treasury), and is now POTUS. He climbed on ignorance and corruption, to power, kind of like the king rat.
How he must have laughed when the idiots were dancing in the streets, chanting his name! “Our savior! Our messiah!!” ROFLMAO!!!
You know what you’re problem is? Only it’s not a problem in the usual sense because I think you do it on purpose.
You say a lot of things I agree with if they were understood with the clarifications I would include if I were saying them. You, however, leave open the possibility and in some cases what you have to know is going to be the probability of having the worst interpretation given to your statements.
In essence you design your posts so as to allow you to later say there was no racist intent while coaxing the charge of racism from those you know will take them that way.
I said a long time ago I didn’t think you were a true racial hater and I still don’t, but you like to play semantic games that keep the disdain flowing in your direction because I think you think it is illustrating a point. While I understand this strategy I am forced to pronounce it in my opinion ineffective.[/quote]
Damn…this would have fit well in his “Black People’s Perception of Racism” thread. This is why I retracted(and apologized for) calling HH a racist a while back,but I also pointed out that its also no surprise that he is called so.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does Obama wear makeup, to make himself darker? In some pics he seems lighter toned, like as if the make up artist was late that day or something.
I rest my case.
Legit question. Answer is most likely yes. Politicians all do when appearing on camera or TV. Well documented that it started with JFK. Polls taken for the radio audience for the first Nixon v JFK debate had scored it overwhelmingly in Nixon’s favor. TV was a different story. Nixon looked tired and worn out. JFK, despite looking awful in person, (whomever said he was a handsome man was lying). Nixon switched to makeup for the subsequent debates. Damage already done.
Between that and the voter fraud in South Texas and the Daley machine in Chicago, Nixon more than likely would have won. Imagine history with that turn of events. The unpledged democratic votes are interesting. That’s another topic
ALL politicians wear make-up…HH is trying to be a slick troll…nothing more. And it started way before JFK.[/quote]
I can’t believe this.
Nearly ALL PEOPLE ON TV wear make up from Oprah to O’Reilly. How does that relate to claims that he is painting himself darker?
How the hell could anyone take that statement any other way than that HH is claiming he is trying to darken himself so that he looks more black?
[quote]streamline wrote:
Why do so many people view Black Pride as racism. Blacks have had to fight for everything they have gained. Yet the pride they show in being Black is racist.
The Obama’s are a proud family. One that has had to struggle harder than most to gain the accomphishments they have. They are proud to be of African heritage. They stand up tall and speak their minds so you will know who and what they are. They are not trying to be white. They are struggling to be equal.
To be equal one must stand on their own feet. They must first know who and what they are. Second they must let everyone else know who and what they are.
One can not successfully run a country without the strength of character required to be the person you are. Yet when a Black person expresses who they are they are viewed as being racist against others.[/quote]
Just a point of clarification here. Obama struggled the most when he lived in Indonesia and had to regularly fight Indonesian kids on the way home from the madrassa every day. He once got beat up and thrown into a canal.
Hawaii has always been multi-racial and operated under very different racial rules than other parts of the US. Obama’s boyhood friends in Hawaii were of many different ethnicities and he didn’t have problems because of his race while he lived there. He was raised by his white grandparents, including his grandmother who was a bank executive. They lived well financially, and Obama was able to attend schools of privilege. He later attended Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.
Michelle Obama attended Princeton and Harvard and makes $300,000 a year as a professional diversicrat.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
They lived well financially, and Obama was able to attend schools of privilege. He later attended Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.
Michelle Obama attended Princeton and Harvard and makes $300,000 a year as a professional diversicrat.
[/quote]
Please, expand one how their financial status makes them immune to racism especially in 1985 (since her thesis is such an issue in the other thread)?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
They lived well financially, and Obama was able to attend schools of privilege. He later attended Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.
Michelle Obama attended Princeton and Harvard and makes $300,000 a year as a professional diversicrat.
Please, expand one how their financial status makes them immune to racism especially in 1985 (since her thesis is such an issue in the other thread)? [/quote]
I haven’t read the other thread. I have read through her thesis, which was a rather uninteresting piece of social research.
Financial status makes no one immune from racism, obviously. The point lost on you is that such “racism” never prevented Barack from being elected president nor Michelle from achieving the 95th percentile in income. In fact, “racism” is Michelle O’s business. She profits quite handsomely from it, as do Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other shakedown artists.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
There’s a huge difference in being “proud” of your cultural heritage and feeling a racial superiority.
“White Pride” as a phrase has almost exclusively been used as an expression of the latter. I don’t think anyone is bent out of shape over “Irish Pride” or St. Patrick Day parades.
However with American blacks it’s not that simple because of the historical nature. Much of that cultural history is lost. It’s hard to know who came from where. So “Black Pride” can be used in a number of ways, pride in the American experience of being black, pride in the cultural African heritage, or a feeling of racial superiority.
It’s really context specific as to whether it’s true pride or racism. Which there were different phrases like in the “white” case but unfortunately there aren’t.
This thread can now be closed. This is really a semantic issue.[/quote]
Well said. A perfect explanation on the differences between “pride” and “racism”. It was totally wasted on many in this forum but well said none the less.
A couple hundred years ago it meant something to be Irish, German, or Chinese. Back then tribes waged wars against one another just because they were a different race/culture. The society we live in today is not like that. Sure there is still some tension, but today more emphasis is put on your economic class then your race.
It is because society has changed that pride in your race is looked down upon while pride in your self and your accomplishments is looked at as a good thing. It is sad President Elect Obama is looked at in a bad light because of his heritage. He has done nothing wrong as far as I have seen. He may not agree with your views or you may not agree with his, but he has clearly worked hard, sacrificed, and done more for this country then most of us. As it turns out he can do even more for this country in the next 4 to 8 years still and he should only be judged by his works not his heritage just as every other American should be judged the same.
If we stop judging by the color of our skin and start pushing everyone to work hard and succeed our nation will prosper for a long time. We have an opportunity with Mr. Obama in office to set an example to the world that race is not the issue, but what a man does is.
Um… I don’t get the majority of whites don’t live in cities anymore. I worked in Manhattan while living in NJ (5 years), and have visited all boroughs.
I was born and raised in Chicago.
I have also lived in LA. I was in Dallas for a few months too.
I would say the majority of minorities don’t live in small towns as I have also lived in several small towns (in Illinois, Colorado and Oregon), but there are a whole shitload of Caucasians everywhere I have lived. Granted, there are parts of the cities where minorities are the majority, but that doesn’t mean that whites don’t live in cities anymore.
[/quote]
I never said that “whites don’t live in cities anymore”. All that I said was the the majority of American whites do not live in cities anymore.
You don’t even have to travel to every borough of NYC to see that whites are a racial minority group in NYC for example.
Wikipedia for example lists the white population of NYC as 43.9% for example.
This figure also includes Hispanics who identify as white. If you take them out of the equation it is more like 33%.
Here is Chicago:
42% white, whites there are also a minority.
Houston is also less than 50% white even when you don’t factor in the ~400,000 illegal Mexican immigrants living there.
LA is also only 42% white, and who knows how many illegal Mexican immigrants live there either:
Philadelphia is 45% white:
Atlanta is 37% white:
Detroit was only 12% white in 2000:
San Diego is also less than 50% white officially (again tons of illegal Mexicans there too…)
Baltimore ~31% white:
Phoenix has dropped from 71 to less than 50% in 8 years:
San Antonio Tx:
Officially has a white majority, but again, tons Mexican immigration there too:
Houston is also less than 50% white even when you don’t factor in the ~400,000 illegal Mexican immigrants living there.
[/quote]
LOL!!
[quote]49.27 percent White[/quote].
Houston is filled with ALL nationalities so the fact that it is STILL damn near 50% white means whites still make up the largest racial group in the city. I fail to see the point you are even trying to make. It wouldn’t matter if [quote]the majority of American whites do not live in cities anymore[/quote](if that were even true which you have not shown it is) because there are more than enough who DO still live in the city. Whites are not the minority even if they make up “49%” of the population because it isn’t like any other one race is matching that as a whole.
I don’t think I’m understanding you here. What group identity did whites have that no longer exists?[/quote]
Many white people used to view themselves as being part of a racial group, I don’t think that is the case today, as post 1960’s American whites have adopted individualism as opposed identification as a racial group.
It’s hard to argue otherwise considering that in the 1960’s it took the federal government to forcefully integrate many American schools.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Christine wrote:
Just because whites are less than 50% doesn’t make them a minority. They are still the biggest part of the pie.
Someone needs to go back to school.
And this is coming from someone who was trying to tell me that NYC was majority white…
Houston is also less than 50% white even when you don’t factor in the ~400,000 illegal Mexican immigrants living there.
LOL!!
49.27 percent White.
Houston is filled with ALL nationalities so the fact that it is STILL damn near 50% white means whites still make up the largest racial group in the city. I fail to see the point you are even trying to make. It wouldn’t matter if the majority of American whites do not live in cities anymore(if that were even true which you have not shown it is) because there are more than enough who DO still live in the city. Whites are not the minority even if they make up “49%” of the population because it isn’t like any other one race is matching that as a whole.
[/quote]
The 49% figure is actually a joke considering the fact that no one really knows how many illegal Mexicans actually live there.
The wikipedia quotes 400,000 illegals there. So what would that do to that 49% number?
Less than 50% in a city means that there are more non-whites there than there are whites.
The majority of white people in America percentage wise live in suburbs, not the city.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Houston is also less than 50% white even when you don’t factor in the ~400,000 illegal Mexican immigrants living there.
LOL!!
49.27 percent White.
Houston is filled with ALL nationalities so the fact that it is STILL damn near 50% white means whites still make up the largest racial group in the city. I fail to see the point you are even trying to make. It wouldn’t matter if the majority of American whites do not live in cities anymore(if that were even true which you have not shown it is) because there are more than enough who DO still live in the city. Whites are not the minority even if they make up “49%” of the population because it isn’t like any other one race is matching that as a whole.
The 49% figure is actually a joke considering the fact that no one really knows how many illegal Mexicans actually live there.
The wikipedia quotes 400,000 illegals there. So what would that do to that 49% number?
Less than 50% in a city means that there are more non-whites there than there are whites.
The majority of white people in America percentage wise live in suburbs, not the city.
[/quote]
You are confused. It does not matter if whites don’t make up more than 50% of the population. No other one race is making up 50% of the population so they are NOT the minority.
Also, as far as Houston, this city has to be one of the fastest growing ones in the entire US. Those “suburbs” that used to be way out in the middle of nowhere are now surrounded by commerce bringing them more into the city than ever before. As the city continues to grow, those “distant suburbs” won’t be distant at all.
Get over it. Whites are not the minorities in most cities.
I don’t think I’m understanding you here. What group identity did whites have that no longer exists?
Many white people used to view themselves as being part of a racial group, I don’t think that is the case today, as post 1960’s American whites have adopted individualism as opposed identification as a racial group.
It’s hard to argue otherwise considering that in the 1960’s it took the federal government to forcefully integrate many American schools.
[/quote]
What? It’s a bad thing that schools were forced to integrate?
That white racial group you are referring to is the same one that spit on blacks as a whole, literally and figuratively. Of course most rational thinking people are going to choose individualism over that racial identity. What the hell are you getting at?
[quote]Christine wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Christine wrote:
Just because whites are less than 50% doesn’t make them a minority. They are still the biggest part of the pie.
Someone needs to go back to school.
And this is coming from someone who was trying to tell me that NYC was majority white…
Your own statistics bear that out.
43%.
What single population makes up more than 43%.
[/quote]
I am not talking about “single populations”. I am talking about the number of non-whites in any city vs. whites. If a city is less than 50% white than it is not a majority white.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Christine wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Christine wrote:
Just because whites are less than 50% doesn’t make them a minority. They are still the biggest part of the pie.
Someone needs to go back to school.
And this is coming from someone who was trying to tell me that NYC was majority white…
Your own statistics bear that out.
43%.
What single population makes up more than 43%.
I am not talking about “single populations”. I am talking about the number of non-whites in any city vs. whites. If a city is less than 50% white than it is not a majority white.
[/quote]