once again, the Obama foreign policy is successful !!

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
:biggrin1:while the GOP squirms, the policy Obama set forward earlier this year in Libya has brought success. goodbye moammar Qaddafi. hello stable oil industry in Libya.for now.
all the whining and moaning from a few liberals and all the Republicans has turned to hot air. Obama is much more adept at foreign policy than ANY of the GOP Tea Turds. and we can sleep better at night for it.
OK, Assad of Syria, youre next on the list , you bastard !!

Not clear what you mean by success?

That Obama trampled on our Constitution? That like a Muslim warlord he committed our troops without proper consultation with Congress?

That he subjugated American sovereignty to foreign powers?

That he has enabled another Arab nation to go the Jihadist route?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
You do. If you are excluding from the definition of a race what people do or common beliefs, how would you define it?


Scientifically, not colloquially. Race has a specific meaning and it isn't subjective. The definition of race I use is... the definition of race, not something I made up or personally feel it should mean;

Distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with a relatively small morphological and genetic differences.

I'm not discounting a social definition of race, as scientifically, black people and white people, Asians and Indigenous peoples aren't different races.Obviously, colloquially, we have a different use for the word race when referencing someone who isn't part of our in-group. Beyond that, however, and we're getting into unfounded bastardization of the term territory.

You're stretching the definition to include what people do and what they have in common to equate to race. Even colloquially that's ridiculous as it would make everyone a member of several different races to the point that using the term at all would be like describing someone by saying "He's a man with a heartbeat."

Poor/Rich people are not a race. Even by your wild leap of a definition they aren't a race since all poor people don't believe the same thing and not all poor people are poor for the same reason and not all poor people are poor forever. So... I don't know where this is coming from but I think the notion that his reference to the President being a racist because of his alleged support of the wealthy has been sufficiently debunked.




JSZ
 
Last edited:

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I've read that Al Qaeda members led the rebels, and now a WikiLeaks cable had McCain supporting Gaddafi not long ago, offering him weapons.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Race has a specific meaning and it isn't subjective. The definition of race I use is....
Distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with a relatively small morphological and genetic differences.
Ok. so scottish people are not a different race from english people or welsh people? So what would i call it if i discriminate against the welsh? racial discrimination or what? On balance I doubt there is very much at all to distinguish the races of the nations which make up the united kingdom. what do you call it if you discriminate against californians or new yorkers?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Ok. so scottish people are not a different race from english people or welsh people? So what would i call it if i discriminate against the welsh? racial discrimination or what? On balance I doubt there is very much at all to distinguish the races of the nations which make up the united kingdom. what do you call it if you discriminate against californians or new yorkers?


A jack ass? A northern elitist snob? People from California aren't a race and neither are people from New York. That isn't what race means. I don't know how to explain it any more plainly than I did in my last post. You asked how I define race and I told you I define it with the definition of the word.

Poor people aren't a race. Rich people aren't a race. Discriminating on the basis or favoring on the basis of wealth means you have a particular inclination or aversion toward one socioeconomic class over another. You're potentially elitist or populist depending but that is not what qualifies someone as a racist. Do you just apply "racist" where ever you can't think of a term for what someone is doing? "Hey, that lady is being rude to the clerk at the counter, the clerk is overweight, so the lady is a racist!"


JSZ
 

D_Hairy Truman

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Posts
181
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
51
Do you just apply "racist" where ever you can't think of a term for what someone is doing? "Hey said:
yes that is what racism has amounted to today. obama is just another pawn for the bankers. plus a known socialist as all democrats are. doesn't matter what administration they're all pawns for bankers and those who want to take away our human rights to make the rich richer.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A jack ass? A northern elitist snob? People from California aren't a race and neither are people from New York. That isn't what race means.
The uk government would take issue with you.

"
What is racial discrimination? The 1976 Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against you on racial grounds. Race includes:



Not so much Scots or welsh perhaps, but Irish were definitely discriminated against at the time this law was enacted. Id say that if you are born one foot right of the national border or one foot left, then you end up belonging to a different race as it is normally understood. two foot difference in where you are born is all it takes. Compared to this a shared culture of inherited wealth and belief that it is appropriate to have a separate class of 'rich' which is cohesive and you are also born into is a much more significant difference. The terminology of describing the rich as a race may be unusual, but it was not so strange. No one would have batted an eye at the phrase 'The rich are a race apart', surely?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
The uk government would take issue with you.

"
What is racial discrimination? The 1976 Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against you on racial grounds. Race includes:


Where does it say that choosing to not or choosing to employ someone based on their bank account is a form of racial discrimination? Surely that's against the law as well but I have a hard time believing even English law describes that form of discrimination (which I whole heartedly believe exists) as something that would be protected against under the Race Relations Act.

The terminology of describing the rich as a race may be unusual, but it was not so strange. No one would have batted an eye at the phrase 'The rich are a race apart', surely?

Barack Obama is a racist because he favors the wealthy. That is the statement that is the genesis of this entire discussion.

My contention is that neither colloquially nor scientifically does the aforementioned alleged allegiance to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class qualify the President (or anyone else) as a racist. That isn't what the term is used to denote in our politics, in our social rhetoric, in our laws or in our biology text books. It isn't just "unusual" it's incorrect. That isn't what racism means. Wealthy people and poor people; defined by their means, fall into a socioeconomic class, not a race.

Under your definition race is a fluid term that is subject to change. Perhaps across the pond that is how it is applied. Tomorrow if I won the lottery I wouldn't suddenly be a new race of person. My economic status would have changed but not the things that constitute my race (or for that matter my nationality, my political stand point, or my ethnic background.)

Put as plainly as I possibly can- suggesting that the term racist can be applied to anyone who disparages or aligns with one group (regardless of its constitution) at the expense of another is to suggest watering the term down to the point making it essentially useless, especially given that there is already a more appropriate term for what was initially being described.





JSZ
 

NYCdude

1st Like
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Put as plainly as I possibly can- suggesting that the term racist can be applied to anyone who disparages or aligns with one group (regardless of its constitution) at the expense of another is to suggest watering the term down to the point making it essentially useless, especially given that there is already a more appropriate term for what was initially being described.

That's a plainly as you can?
 

B_enzia35

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
863
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
53
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Humorously enough, isn't what whoever said "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" in the movie an "absolute" statement in itself?

BTW, call me racist all you want. It means nothing to me. Y'all've (meaning whoever parrots that word around)done took any meaning and power out of the word.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Barack Obama is a racist because he favors the wealthy. That is the statement that is the genesis of this entire discussion.
The line was " i think BHO is racist for helping out the mega rich keep their oil supply going under the guise of trying to help the erased middle class. "

My contention is that neither colloquially nor scientifically does the aforementioned alleged allegiance to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class qualify the President (or anyone else) as a racist.
Well, I thought the analogy was quite apt and made a good point which I would not have thought you would disagree with. I am not myself convinced that Obama is guilty of deliberately favouring the rich even if he has put his name to things which in effect do this. I think he has been reading too much history about effective government through compromise. Or maybe he's really scared that if he rocks the boat just as congress is doing, the debt money really will dry up.
Wealthy people and poor people; defined by their means, fall into a socioeconomic class, not a race.
So you would have been content if the poster had said Obama was class discriminating against the majority of americans?

Under your definition race is a fluid term that is subject to change.
When did we ever not have a group called 'the rich' and when was this group not one which you are born into? This group also tends to be synonymous with 'aristocracy' or 'ruling', all of which seem to be true of the US. If the US ever was a non-discriminating melting pot where everyone has an equal chance in life, it certainly isnt now. Perhaps it was more true to say the US was so big people could disappear into it and carve out wealth much more easily than wherever they came from. Or, because it has always been developing, there was always room for social advancement as new things were developed. It would seem that now this historical situation has come to an end and it is good old fashioned class and race war just like everyone came to the US to escape.

Put as plainly as I possibly can- suggesting that the term racist can be applied to anyone who disparages or aligns with one group (regardless of its constitution) at the expense of another is to suggest watering the term down to the point making it essentially useless, especially given that there is already a more appropriate term for what was initially being described.
This wasnt just any group. This was the biggest divide in the US today, the gulf between rich and poor. It is what is currently tearing the US apart. This has reached the stage of disenchantment with existing politicians and politcal system. Anyone for revolution within the US? Because that is the track you are following. I dont see using a term to describe a process which if it continues can only lead to civil war as 'watering it down'. You have already had one civil war over the question of whether people can be regarded as property. This is another looming.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Well, I thought the analogy was quite apt and made a good point which I would not have thought you would disagree with. I am not myself convinced that Obama is guilty of deliberately favouring the rich even if he has put his name to things which in effect do this. I think he has been reading too much history about effective government through compromise. Or maybe he's really scared that if he rocks the boat just as congress is doing, the debt money really will dry up.

Fine. Even if I agreed with all of that, and I don't, I still wouldn't use that as justification for calling the President a racist. And the quote wasn't an analogy! He straight up said because of X Barack Obama was Y. It wasn't a metaphor, it wasn't a simile, and it wasn't an allegory. It was a statement that was false thanks to the misapplication of a term with a wholly different meaning.

So you would have been content if the poster had said Obama was class discriminating against the majority of americans?

I wouldn't have been content with it (as I don't agree with it) but I wouldn't have dismissed it as a wholly inappropriate use of a term which is what this whole mess is about.

When did we ever not have a group called 'the rich' and when was this group not one which you are born into? This group also tends to be synonymous with 'aristocracy' or 'ruling', all of which seem to be true of the US. If the US ever was a non-discriminating melting pot where everyone has an equal chance in life, it certainly isnt now. Perhaps it was more true to say the US was so big people could disappear into it and carve out wealth much more easily than wherever they came from. Or, because it has always been developing, there was always room for social advancement as new things were developed. It would seem that now this historical situation has come to an end and it is good old fashioned class and race war just like everyone came to the US to escape.


Whatever! That is all beside the point; being wealthy or poor doesn't make you part of a race. As such being adverse or in favor of one over the other doesn't make you a racist.

This wasnt just any group. This was the biggest divide in the US today, the gulf between rich and poor. It is what is currently tearing the US apart. This has reached the stage of disenchantment with existing politicians and politcal system. Anyone for revolution within the US? Because that is the track you are following. I dont see using a term to describe a process which if it continues can only lead to civil war as 'watering it down'. You have already had one civil war over the question of whether people can be regarded as property. This is another looming.

I'm going to put aside... really all of that because my only point of contention with you has nothing at all to do with history or the politics in the United States or what Armageddon you think is right around our corner, but that race is not defined in this country by wealth or lack of it and so support or disparity of said socioeconomic classes does not qualify anyone as a racist.

There are any number of ways I disagree with the President. That isn't the point. There are any number of ways he might be accused of favoritism in regard to one group over another. That isn't the point either. You can straight loathe up Barack Obama and have dozens upon dozens of "justifications" why and yet still, that isn't the point. The statement that due to his alleged allegiance to the aforementioned (always alliterate) at the expense of the middle class he (the President) is a racist, is completely and utterly invalid based on that term being the correct application neither colloquially nor scientifically (the two ways I agreed the term could be applied.)

If you want to debate over something else, fine, but that is in the end where I stand on that one sentence that you found it so necessary to defend.



JSZ
 
Last edited: