It's too soon for America to have a black President.

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

Ahhh HaaaH! That's racist! Like the kettle couldn't be a steely dark grey! :wink:

Well, we're both in the wrong. The politically correct term for the instance you mentioned is Halfrican. So HA!

 

[HamYai]

Well, we're both in the wrong. The politically correct term for the instance you mentioned is Halfrican. So HA!

That almost whooshed over my head. :biggrin1:

 

[HamYai]

But slavery has existed for thousands of years, back to the Sumerians, something for which there is written evidence. I don't doubt the practice goes back even further. Not forgetting of course that it continues to this day in more places than many realise.

I'm sorry. i can't help it. this is so much more interesting than the original thread.

It still does go on in pretty much every nation.

Those nations who today conduct in the slave trade most heavily, pro-rata, are still........African.

White man is guilty, Tyler has said so.

Or something like that.

 

[ZOS23xy]

To be fair, it was the Dutch who started the slave trade. And half of Europe and America has profited from it so no-ones innocent, at least indirectly.

Wrong. As per usual for you. Indirectly? What does that mean?

Guilt is indirect?

It's funny to notice that people are always trying to find who to blame first for the slave trade, as if that made the centuries of slave trade a little bit more respectable.

It was ugly from the first and to the last, and no one is 'better' because it was started by someone else.

 

[davefox]

Sad to say, I think McCain/Rice are going to win. I live near Canada; maybe I'll slip over the border and start a new life. I'm really depressed, seriously.

 

[HamYai]

Sad to say, I think McCain/Rice are going to win. I live near Canada; maybe I'll slip over the border and start a new life. I'm really depressed, seriously.

Speaking as an outsider who knows relatively little about your politics, you may be correct.

Appears to me that the democrats are doing the republican's job of divide and rule.

 

[uncut1234]

i have an idea.
take all the top posters from internet amateur sex sites, and youd probably have the best team to lead our country from the sounds of it!

 

[naughty]

Some comments should stop before they begin...

 

[B_Monster]

Some comments should stop before they begin...

YEP!

 

[kalipygian]

Britain has already had an 'ethnic minority' PM, if Jewish is considered an ethnicity. Benjamin Disraeli's parents were Sephardic, though he was baptized Anglican, and dropped the apostrophe from the family name. (D'Israeli)

 

[HotBulge]

Let's get back to the OP and the comment that it's too soon in America to have a Black President. It's important to recognize a social or historical turning point as it's happening.

• Barak Obama is not the first person of color to run for the US presidency. Deceased Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ran in 1972 (and won ~120 delegates), Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 and 1988, and Al Sharpton ran in 2004. So, there's been more than a 30 year history of notable African-Americans running for office (and more than a century of political representation in Congress). Barak Obama is the first Black American to have cross-over appeal into the broader White community, though.

• Let's keep in mind that Barak Obama is currently leading in the popular vote and that he won in some predominantly White areas. Did the OP ever consider that voting for Obama was itself a referendum against the Washington establishment. In other words, White middle Americans may be so disgusted with how George Bush has run this country into the ground that a non-Washington insider (by perception) may be what middle America wants. So, mainstream White America may actually be READY for a black president (who is well-qualified and sound in judgment).

• You may also recall a rather moving speech that Obama gave in March 2008 in defense of his 20 years of church attendance under Rev. Wright. You can find the YouTube moment where the pastor of his church said (paraphrasing in reference to 9/11_), "America's chickens have come home to roost.... America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America let covert assasination attempts on leaders in the Middle East ... God damn America". Obama's brilliant response was that his pastor was WRONG because he focused on everything that was wrong with America's past and omitted what America has done right. I believe that the OP is making the same mistake. A fear of it being too early for America to have a Black president is focusing on the morally wrong aspect of this country's past. If the USA didn't periodically have people who helped make social progress, the USA would still be debating whether Blacks and women should be allowed to vote...

• Finally, we must focus on the future. Demographically, the USA is changing. Blacks make up 13% of the US population, and Hispanics make up even more. If you add other minorities, you have ~ 25% of the population that is minority. Demographers forecast that the number of minorities in this country will only increase over the next few decades. The USA already is experiencing a "majority-minority" phenomenon in many large cities where, collectively, the minority groups outnumber White Americans. So, the USA must embrace the high statistical outcome that its future population will be 30 to 40% minority. Of the American minority groups, African-Americans have historically had the most political and cultural influence, so it only makes sense that 2008 is the time when the USA can and should socially deal with the notion of a Black (or minority , in general) president. No country can survive by ignoring 40% of its population, so it's not unreasonable to conceive of presidential candidates coming from large minority groups...

As an analogy, think of the year 2008 as the analog of 1900. In 1900, there were probably enough people around who remembered the Civil War from 1860=65. Those people who decried that the Union won against the Southern Confederate states would look rather pathetic by being mired in the past. As 1900 ushered in the 20th century (socially, not technically), 2008 must usher in the 21st century. It's time for America to let go of early and md 20th century prejudices.

P.S. I'm a Hillary supporter ... not that it's relevant to this conversation. :smile:

 

[frizzle]

Wrong. As per usual for you. Indirectly? What does that mean?

Guilt is indirect?

It's funny to notice that people are always trying to find who to blame first for the slave trade, as if that made the centuries of slave trade a little bit more respectable.

It was ugly from the first and to the last, and no one is 'better' because it was started by someone else.

Main Entry:in·di·rect

Pronunciation: \&#716;in-d&#601;-&#712;rekt, -(&#716d&#299;-\ Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English, from Medieval Latin indirectus, from Latin in- + directus direct — more at dressDate:14th century : not direct: as a (1): deviating from a direct line or course : roundabout (2): not going straight to the point <an indirect accusation> (3): being or involving proof of a proposition or theorem by demonstration that its negation leads to an absurdity or contradiction b: not straightforward and open : deceitful c: not directly aimed at or achieved <indirect consequences> d: stating what a real or supposed original speaker said with changes in wording that conform the statement grammatically to the sentence in which it is included <indirect discourse> <an indirect question> e: not effected by the action of the people or the electorate <indirect government representation>
— in·di·rect·ly

\-&#712;rek(t)-l&#275;\ adverb
— in·di·rect·ness

\-n&#601;s\ noun

No-one was directly involved with the slave trade, we wern't chaining people together or forcing people to work on our farms. But slavery built up our economy and is why some of us are slightly richer today. And it's not about making slavery more acceptable it's just trying to be a bit more knowledgeable. Maybe you should try it.

 

[Rugbypup]

I dunno, it could be good for America, after all, whoever gets in can't do much worse than bloody Bush has.

As for the slave trade thing, give over people, its been what, 200 years? Every major power on Earth was built on the backs of slaves. The Egypians, Romans, the English have been invaded and enslaved countless times, the Americas, China.

There has to be a point reached where you are of course free to acknowledge your past and even your ancestry, but harping on about things that didn't happen in your life time, your parents life time or even your grandparent life time serves no purpose other than not allowing old wounds to heal.

Slavery in our history is wrong, but what has it to do with anyone today?

It's why I find this whole reparation is a little laughable. Imagine it in England, where do you stop, the French? the Romans? the Vikings?

 

[MageM]

After all, this is Large Penis Support Group. org.

As Ms Clinton has no penis at all, and strong chances are Obama is much more endowed than tiny little conservative McCain, I believe our duty is to support fellow Obama.

Race is not essential, penis should be the key word here, and Obama is the man to support.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Let's get back to the OP and the comment that it's too soon in America to have a Black President. It's important to recognize a social or historical turning point as it's happening.

• Barak Obama is not the first person of color to run for the US presidency. Deceased Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ran in 1972 (and won ~120 delegates), Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 and 1988, and Al Sharpton ran in 2004. So, there's been more than a 30 year history of notable African-Americans running for office (and more than a century of political representation in Congress). Barak Obama is the first Black American to have cross-over appeal into the broader White community, though.

• Let's keep in mind that Barak Obama is currently leading in the popular vote and that he won in some predominantly White areas. Did the OP ever consider that voting for Obama was itself a referendum against the Washington establishment. In other words, White middle Americans may be so disgusted with how George Bush has run this country into the ground that a non-Washington insider (by perception) may be what middle America wants. So, mainstream White America may actually be READY for a black president (who is well-qualified and sound in judgment).

• You may also recall a rather moving speech that Obama gave in March 2008 in defense of his 20 years of church attendance under Rev. Wright. You can find the YouTube moment where the pastor of his church said (paraphrasing in reference to 9/11_), "America's chickens have come home to roost.... America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America let covert assasination attempts on leaders in the Middle East ... God damn America". Obama's brilliant response was that his pastor was WRONG because he focused on everything that was wrong with America's past and omitted what America has done right. I believe that the OP is making the same mistake. A fear of it being too early for America to have a Black president is focusing on the morally wrong aspect of this country's past. If the USA didn't periodically have people who helped make social progress, the USA would still be debating whether Blacks and women should be allowed to vote...

• Finally, we must focus on the future. Demographically, the USA is changing. Blacks make up 13% of the US population, and Hispanics make up even more. If you add other minorities, you have ~ 25% of the population that is minority. Demographers forecast that the number of minorities in this country will only increase over the next few decades. The USA already is experiencing a "majority-minority" phenomenon in many large cities where, collectively, the minority groups outnumber White Americans. So, the USA must embrace the high statistical outcome that its future population will be 30 to 40% minority. Of the American minority groups, African-Americans have historically had the most political and cultural influence, so it only makes sense that 2008 is the time when the USA can and should socially deal with the notion of a Black (or minority , in general) president. No country can survive by ignoring 40% of its population, so it's not unreasonable to conceive of presidential candidates coming from large minority groups...

As an analogy, think of the year 2008 as the analog of 1900. In 1900, there were probably enough people around who remembered the Civil War from 1860=65. Those people who decried that the Union won against the Southern Confederate states would look rather pathetic by being mired in the past. As 1900 ushered in the 20th century (socially, not technically), 2008 must usher in the 21st century. It's time for America to let go of early and md 20th century prejudices.

P.S. I'm a Hillary supporter ... not that it's relevant to this conversation. :smile:

you know what?? that hot bulge is making a lotta sense

 

[B_Trues]

hilary seems a bit communist, or mayb her form of capitalism may bee prgressive as it feeds the stem(middle class), she is a woman which will put alot of the anti-feminism to rest, and history of suppression of woman

barack will f*up a 3 trillion dollar war, has interesting views on education, little experience, and wants to get off of oil, he also does not seem strong enough to act against iran, albeit he wants to attack pakistan, while their are many more important things to look after, and may make unwanted friends, he is black and would berry many prejudices and false accusations about the 'white' gov, although he is not truly a black american

mccain ...almost perfect, although i think he means good in iraq, i think that he should not extend this too long, and rather, get them to self-sustain a democratic progressive liberal government, to stand as an example to the rest of the middleeast. if this is not possible, then he should simply leave em alone and lock them off of usa and the rest of the developed world, as it is not usa' and the rest of the 30 countries in this war' responsibility as islamics want t be classified as another specie's, and not progressive, let them have their wish, and watch them fail under it?

 

[marleyisalegend]

After all, this is Large Penis Support Group. org.

As Ms Clinton has no penis at all, and strong chances are Obama is much more endowed than tiny little conservative McCain, I believe our duty is to support fellow Obama.

Race is not essential, penis should be the key word here, and Obama is the man to support.

well-said. i mean something about him makes me feel like he's got some heavy machinery swingin between his legs. he's got my vote!!!

 

[HamYai]

McCain has an adopted black/indian daughter, oh he must be soo racist and unfair to blacks

-wiki

Fair play to him.

It shows he/they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is in a way that truly matters.

Good to see that her different ethnicity didn't make them falter.

A heartwarming snippet of information that helps give substance to those (like myself) that believe America, possibly more than anywhere else, is gradually shaking off hundreds of years of seperatist feelings.

But to get back on topic, it only takes one hate-filled racist and one opportunity to achieve immortality through notoriety.

And you can be sure there's more than one of those out their, winding themself up and figuring out a plan of action.

Which is why I fear for Obama and the subsequent division and discord within the US if he were to become the target of such evil.

 

[B_Trues]

yip i posted that, source from: John McCain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[zawfi]

I would like to have read your post with a straight face, STD, but when you said "Killing Presidents &/or candidates is almost a sporting pastime in the US," you became a very silly person. Practically a buffoon, in fact, or even a moron.