Regarding Obama's Presidency

[Papou]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...

[Aucune Raison]

Originally Posted by silverdragon1615

That is an ignorant statement, its simply wrong when it is abused, which it has an extremly high tendency of doing, like in Stalin and Mao's case. Socialism, in my opinion is certainly flawed, but in no way should be considered "wrong". Besides that Obama isnt even Socialist, he may have some socialst ideals, like universal healthcare, but is that a bad thing? Its not like hes banning profit and setting up a government agency to run the economy.

im not ignorent ur ignorant barak hussein obama is socalist he is scrwing our economie & takin away are rites. socalised helthcare duznt werk docters get payd les ther r long lines and it rayses taxs

govrnment shuld stay out off teh markit. free marcet fixs itself, gred is gud

[Watson]

Originally Posted by Ragione

im not ignorent ur ignorant barak hussein obama is socalist he is scrwing our economie & takin away are rites. socalised helthcare duznt werk docters get payd les ther r long lines and it rayses taxs

govrnment shuld stay out off teh markit. free marcet fixs itself, gred is gud

Three cheers for sarcasm! Anyways, I would like to say one thing about this racism thing we got goin' here...Racism exists on all sides, but yeah...white people being racist gets the most attention. Slavery anyone? Exactly. I'm pretty sure there were no Black slave owners, in america at least. Even Thomas Jefferson had slaves! And black people who are racist just sort of say...These guys hurt our people a lot, so they all suck. In my oppinion.

[Papou]

White people are griped at the most for anything that can be seen as racist. There's no problem with people referring to themselves as part of the 'black community', 'latino community', etc., but a white person who takes pride in their ethnicity is labeled an elitist bigot.

And slavery was more widespread and existed longer in Africa than in America.

[Grass]

Originally Posted by Misanthropy

That, and anti-white racism is far less visible due to there being no symbology associated with it. You see a white guy with tattoo of swatstickas and eagles and it's instantly apparent that he's a racist, yet no equivilent for that exists on the other side of the coin.

[killer kung fu wolf bitch]

Originally Posted by Sam

Don't over analyze it. Obama is president because a majority of American voters decided that he was the best man for the job. Race really was not a factor in his election.

True. The majority of the American public voted for the better man and that happened to be Barack Hussein Obama although race did have a small factor in aiding in his eventual victory againist Mc-Palin, especially with overwhelming support from the African American community.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Papou

White people are griped at the most for anything that can be seen as racist. There's no problem with people referring to themselves as part of the 'black community', 'latino community', etc., but a white person who takes pride in their ethnicity is labeled an elitist bigot.

Because white people make up like 80% of the population. There's nothing exclusive about it, so it makes perfect sense to me that one would have to be some kind of bigot to take pride in being racially undistinguished.

That being said, if you have nothing better than your race to define yourself by in the first place, you're a sad person regardless.

Originally Posted by Sa'id

race did have a small factor in aiding in his eventual victory againist Mc-Palin, especially with overwhelming support from the African American community.

Sanctimonious white liberals would have voted for a Democrat regardless but of course they ate up the fact that he is black. But black people in general have always voted for whichever party favors their own interests; when Lincoln ended slavery every black person in the country was a Republican, and when LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act they lined up overwhelmingly on the left side, for Clinton and Carter as well. I promise you race was not a big factor in the outcome of this election.

[Papou]

Originally Posted by Sam

Because white people make up like 80% of the population. There's nothing exclusive about it, so it makes perfect sense to me that one would have to be some kind of bigot to take pride in being racially undistinguished.

Why does that make somebody a bigot? I can understand the 'who cares' factor being pretty much nonexistent in large majorities but there's nothing wrong with being interested in or proud of your heritage, even if you're not the minority in the place where you live. And "racially undistinguished" implies that the white population is homogenous, which isn't true at all.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Papou

Why does that make somebody a bigot? I can understand the 'who cares' factor being pretty much nonexistent in large majorities but there's nothing wrong with being interested in or proud of your heritage, even if you're not the minority in the place where you live. And "racially undistinguished" implies that the white population is homogeneous, which isn't true at all.

You can divide Caucasians into different categories based on nationality just as you can for Asians, Latinos and Blacks. But when we're not micromanaging for the sake of niceties, white is just white, black is just black etc. Culturally it makes virtually no difference in the USA.

Historical events are not often based around race, but when they are, the whites (or people of European origin in general) appear as the antagonists far more often than not. Slavery, apartheid, displacing indigenous people, exploiting the natural resources of developing countries, and so on. So yes, when I hear a white person claim that they're proud of their race, I'm going to assume that they are supremacists to some extent, or they're just really fucking pathetic and have nothing aside from their heritage to fall back on.

I simply want to make the point that so long as we're speaking in terms of national history, there's an overwhelming difference between a black person who takes pride in the civil rights movement and a white person who takes pride in...what?

[Aucune Raison]

A white person would not use the word "race", when "heritage" is much more accurate but also more PC.

In society, you can be proud of being Irish.

[Papou]

Originally Posted by Sam

You can divide Caucasians into different categories based on nationality just as you can for Asians, Latinos and Blacks. But when we're not micromanaging for the sake of niceties, white is just white, black is just black etc. Culturally it makes virtually no difference in the USA.

Okay, I see what you meant then.

Historical events are not often based around race, but when they are, the whites (or people of European origin in general) appear as the antagonists far more often than not. Slavery, apartheid, displacing indigenous people, exploiting the natural resources of developing countries, and so on. So yes, when I hear a white person claim that they're proud of their race, I'm going to assume that they are supremacists to some extent, or they're just really fucking pathetic and have nothing aside from their heritage to fall back on.

I simply want to make the point that so long as we're speaking in terms of national history, there's an overwhelming difference between a black person who takes pride in the civil rights movement and a white person who takes pride in...what?

If a white person is a white person and we can leave it at that, I guess I can be proud that 'my people' founded the country? While we're there, I can also be proud of the few of 'my people' who were part of that movement. But really, I don't see any reason for somebody to take pride in the civil rights movement unless they actually had a hand in it.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Papou

If a white person is a white person and we can leave it at that, I guess I can be proud that 'my people' founded the country? While we're there, I can also be proud of the few of 'my people' who were part of that movement. But really, I don't see any reason for somebody to take pride in the civil rights movement unless they actually had a hand in it.

I agree with you, and frankly think that taking pride in one's heritage is inherently stupid. But I'd also say that it's fundamentally less ridiculous to take some level of pride in being on the prevailing side and not the predominantly oppressing side.

[Grass]

Originally Posted by Sam

You can divide Caucasians into different categories based on nationality just as you can for Asians, Latinos and Blacks. But when we're not micromanaging for the sake of niceties, white is just white, black is just black etc. Culturally it makes virtually no difference in the USA.

Appearance-wise, people are often apt to lump "whites" together and "blacks" together, but culturally there's plenty of difference in the USA. It would be ludicrous to assume otherwise, that, say, two white Irish and Italian Americans are so much more indistinguishable in culture than a black American with African heritage.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Blueman

So since I'm white I have no pride in anything? Did the white man not found America? Did the white man not write the Constitution?

The white man has many things to be proud of.

i missed you

coughchristianbigotcough