: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 !!
You do. If you are excluding from the definition of a race what people do or common beliefs, how would you define it?
That he has enabled another Arab nation to go the Jihadist route?
That Obama trampled on our Constitution? That like a Muslim warlord he committed our troops without proper consultation with Congress?
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.
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?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?
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.
The uk government would take issue with you.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:
- colour
- nationality
- ethnic or national origins" Racial discrimination : Directgov - Employment
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?
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.
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. "Barack Obama is a racist because he favors the wealthy. That is the statement that is the genesis of this entire discussion.
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.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.
So you would have been content if the poster had said Obama was class discriminating against the majority of americans?Wealthy people and poor people; defined by their means, fall into a socioeconomic class, not a race.
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.Under your definition race is a fluid term that is subject to change.
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.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.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Well . . . *some* Siths deal in absolutes.
And it's not *only* Siths who deal in absolutes.
I mean, c'mon . . . let's not be too absolute about it. :awink:
Humorously enough, isn't what whoever said "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" in the movie an "absolute" statement in itself?
...like a Muslim warlord
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.
So you would have been content if the poster had said Obama was class discriminating against the majority of americans?
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.
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.