Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I generally agree with you, but this part was incorrect.

It's not "unconstitutional" if it is in the Constitution :lol:
-----Added 6/11/2008 at 09 : 07 : 58-----
Well, technically one could argue that what they wanted (in general) was what ended up written down.

And usually the ones who try to do something that either isn't mentioned or is not allowed by the Constitution don't use it to defend their actions :lol:

The last time I saw so many black people celebrating like this was when O.J. was found not guilty.

WTF? What is that supposed to mean? I was celebrating, quietly, in my house over the past day, let me tell you. I'm the only white person in the house, but it's my right.
To anoyone other than timalkin who reads this, sorry, I'm apoplectic by that statement
for some reason.

Some people just have the ability show how retrograde their thinking really is.

What's next?

"Did you hear that Obama is going to make the White House the Black House?"

Yes. The nasty yucks just keep coming.

I find it quite disturbing that most black people voted for Obama just because he was black.

Just look at how much attention is being paid to the fact that Obama is the first black president of the United States. Would black people have voted for any black presidential candidate, even one who would clearly not be suitable for the job? It seems very likely.

I'm appalled at the outright racism in this election. Voting for someone just because their skin is a certain color is racist, even if that skin color is black.

A large majority of black people seem to enjoy "sticking it to the man," just like O.J. supposedly did. At least we can finally dump racist policies like affirmative action now.

Really? You find your own self-serving hallucinations disturbing? Maybe you should consult a psychologist.

No wait. You're right. America's black population, the overwhelming majority of which historically have voted Democratic, only voted Democratic this election because the Democrats had a black man running.

I need to stop finding my posts above the ones with the yellow letters.

I'm fascinated at how you know why people did what they did, Kreskin.
Can you tell my height from the type of vocabulary I use, or the fact that I just
multi-quoted I must be ambidextrous?
Un-effing believable. There a variety of black folks, just like a variety of white, okay
skippy? Folks with different reasons for why they do what they do.

If ever there was a "man" for it to be stuck to, you might just be it.

timalkin... you might also ask yourself this question: how many "white" voters chose McCain simply because Obama is black?

The point is, there are many and varied reasons that people choose to vote for someone. To take the increasingly racist point of view that you put forth, the idea that *all* blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black is ridiculous and offensive.

quoting this pertinent post yet again....
This was the first election in my memory where I was deeply disappointed but fully expected the results. The very thought of "President Obama" makes me ill, but I will give him every chance to write his own legacy and possibly change my mind (or at least make it less hostile to him).
Just not watching any speeches he does for the forseeable future (might be years in this case)

Don't forget that racist African-Americans put Obama on the road to the White House by choosing him over Alan Keyes.

Sorry if I made no sense back a few posts ago, I saw red.
I think what's important is that everyone can express their opinion, no matter how odious. Conservative, Liberal, and especially Socialists, believe in Free Speech. I just have to learn how to grit my teeth and not say "Moran!" at a certain few.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...ain_morans.jpg

I'd think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would disagree. Obama was a legitimate candidate for this office. The black vote alone did not elect him.

My family is caucasian as far back as I can imagine and we voted Obama. And one of the reasons I voted for him is his skin color. If I can recognize that America needs to look beyond the color of a person's skin, black people certainly can.

It's one thing to vote for Obama because you think his policies and experiences make him the better candidate for President.

It's another thing to vote for him because he is black.

I haven't heard a single white person say that they voted for McCain because he is white.

I have heard MANY black people say that they voted for Obama because he is black.

How are you looking beyond the color of a person's skin if you voted for him BECAUSE of the color of his skin?

It's interesting that my viewpoint is labeled as a racist one. I advocate choosing a political leader based on knowledge, skill, and experience. I don't care what color they are or what is between their legs. How is this racist?
-----Added 7/11/2008 at 03 : 01 : 11-----
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have gotten rich off of playing the race card every chance they can.

Seriously, if racism was eliminated tomorrow, what would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do for a living?

umm
i don't know where you live
but i heard a BUUUUNCH of white people who voted for mccain bc he was white...it wans't bc he was white, exactly, but bc he wasn't black....

don't think all the mccain votes were purely bc he's a great candidate...there was a HUGE contingent of whites voting for him bc he wasn't black..don't fool yourself

timalkin,

you aren't a bigot because you think expressed your desire for race to be a nonissue in presidential elections. You're a bigot because you assume that most black people voted for Obama because of his race.

You basically said this: I don't think people should be judged based on their skin color and I'm sick of all these black people: I can tell just from the color of their skin that they only voted for Obama because of his race. If you can't see how inconsistent that statement is, then whatever to you.

I didn't say I voted for him because of his race. I said that his race was one of the reasons. The fact that arguably the most powerful person in the world is a person of color has the potential to impact our society in so many positive ways. Were I to think that he was unfit for the office, my vote would have been different.

Many white evangelicals said they voted for Mike Hiuckabee in the early Republican primaries for one reason...he was the most Christian.

Yes. I would never have voted for Obama if he had demonstrated anything less than a top-notch intellect and critical thinker (DEFINITELY not if he had thought Africa was a country, or not known which countries were in NAFTA, for example... hmm). I was in favor of him AS A PERSON, an intellectual, a potential leader, first and foremost. I could never have endorsed a presidential candidate of any race, of any gender, without feeling satisfied with those categories. (Hence why I would never in my right mind have voted for someone like Palin--regardless of her gender.)

And then somewhere down the list of reasons for why I voted for him, I also thought that the fact that he is a person of color would have immense value to the particularly broken culture of the United States, as well as to the rest of the world. I also considered the potential impact of the plain fact of his face, his particular face, being plastered all over the TVs and newspapers of the world for at least the next four years. It speaks more clearly and loudly about what America is (and wants to be) more than any policy could have done. I don't see how anyone could have ignored that fact.

That implies a specific set of general beliefs, and likely a set of specific beliefs that they share.

That isn't the same thing as the color of one's skin. It's more like someone saying they voted for Obama because he was the "most Democrat".

96% of black voters picked Obama.

3% of black voters picked McCain.

Compare these results to the 2004 presidential election when Kerry only received 88% of the black vote. More blacks voted in this election than in any previos election. Is Obama any more or less liberal than Kerry? Probably not enough to make a difference in the numbers.

I never said that ALL black voters chose Obama because he was black, but take a look at what's being said and done by a large number of blacks:

-Excessive celebration. When was the last time we've seen such huge celebrations in the streets by blacks? When O.J. was found not guilty. I don't recall this behavior when Clinton was elected or reelected in the 90's.

-Statements that they voted for Obama because he was black.
-Statements concerning how great it is to have a black president.
-Statements about how they never thought they'd see a black president in their lifetime.

The list goes on and on. Why is it that a white person saying that they voted for McCain because he is white a racist remark, but not when a black person says they voted for Obama because he is black? It's the same thing either way. There is a distinct double standard in this country when it comes to racism. A white person who claims to have voted for Obama because he is black is also a racist.

When will racism ever stop if we continue to make decisions based on race? Racism will never cease if we keep encouraging it. But then again, many people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a lot to lose if racism really disappears.

There are some who will vote for the candidate with whom they are most comfortable....be it race, religion, age....

But what was more ignorant in timalkin's observation about Black voters for Obama was to characterize it as "racist" suggesting no understanding of the term.

The same lack of understanding of the term "racism" expressed above.

No, but Kerry couldn't get a kid excited about candy. They're two different men, and not just for the superficial reasons you cite.

I agree about comfort, but I still think they are two different levels. I don't think there is a problem with voting for someone because they have the same values as you do, but I do when the reason turns to basic race.

I'm not going to go through the whole, "I'm white, but I'm not racist because I have black friends, etc." (I don't have black friends, but I also don't have any friends :lol:), but I do think timalkin has a point. If the main reason a black person voted for or against a candidate, white or black or any other racial or ethnic background, is because of skin color, that is very questionable in my opinion. Same as if I voted for or against McCain or Obama because of their race.

In this election, because of the specifically historic nature of Obama's victory when it comes to race, I'm not overly upset. However, if it becomes a trend that a candidate gets the overwhelming majority of votes from others of their race because of their race, that would be, and should be to all, very disconcerting to the way our country is heading.

Honestly, I think the bigger issue is having almost the entire black population in most elections voting Democrat, but that is something completely different.

Best thing about this discussion is that when the first Latino or Asian person gets the nod, hopefully most of the ignorance will
have been cleaned up.
Anybody got numbers on % of Catholics who voted for Kennedy vs. Nixon way back when?
Timalkin, I want you to understand something quite simple, people vote for the person they think will give them the best shake, the best deal, represent their interests the best. After Bush (and the Republican Parties) treatment of the poorer districts in New Orleans, which were predominately black, do you think some, including thoughtful whites, might not have thought that blacks are poorly served by a Republican President? I might not like Kanye West's opinions very much, and I hate it even more when he's right about George Bush not caring about black people.
Why do I care? Well, up by your treeline you may not realize this, but Northern European (read white) culture's power is on the decline. I think if we here can treat EVERYONE with equality, they MIGHT not put our children on trial for the horrors our great grandparents committed in the name of "purity".

About this "excessive celebration", please provide concrete examples. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass.


By the way, a lot of us (myself included) should read and learn from what the ladies are saying about us over in their forum. Guys, remember, read, don't post.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/ladies-...-politics.html

You know, I drove to the polling station a couple of days ago to vote for Obama and nobody was there! Boy, did I feel silly. Apparently, Canadians can't vote in American elections!

Seriously though, how do they know the races or religions or whatever of who votes for who? The ballots are the same as here, right? X marks the spot. There's no 20 questions on the ballot. It's all statistics from polls, which are no better than wild ass guesses.

Anyway, what was interesting to me was how the various ethnic groups got off there couches and went door to door to raise money and make sure all the Obama voters got to the polls. And I read that he said, "we can't lose if we outnumber them!". If he can run such a successful campaign and motivate people to do that to get him elected, he can motivate them to help him solve their problems. "Yes we can".

Exit polls. those who consent to them answer who they voted for and then a bunch of questions about their life. (do you own a gun, how old are you, etc)

Thanks. I don't think we have them here. Or maybe I was in too big of a hurry to get the hell out. I think you're kind of encouraged to get the hell out. They can't be very accurate. Only those with nothing better to do would hang about filling out surveys for free. Now, maybe if they were giving out hotdogs and drinks....

Cheers, man. :thumbsup:

These comments about race remind me of something:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29...um_chamber.jpg

I haven't seen one of those since high school physics... nice one, Pig.

What is it? Forgive my ignorance. I took High School physics and don't remember it
(or much of High School, for that matter).
Abaya, No, thank you!

It's a bell jar... the machine underneath it sucks out all the air from inside the jar, creating a vacuum inside. It makes for some damn cool demonstrations. (I was way too much of a science nerd in high school. :shy: )

Abaya,
The bell jar! I've read about it. We used some sort of domed contraption, kinda like a
cake cover, with a vacuum hose, plastic seals, clamps, etc....
It's funny, but I never studied (like, AT ALL) in H.S. but I tended to do very well in
Physics, math, and biology. Chemistry, not so much.....

To everyone else, sorry about the threadjack, not intended. Please return to our reularly
scheduled programming..... :orly:

They suck?

empty-headed
-----Added 8/11/2008 at 03 : 43 : 06-----
Well, that thread will likely get moved over here anyway. I prefer to read stuff like "The general wetness question". :thumbsup:

yes, was quite a good read. at least now i´m convinced that the females of tfp are no better than the males, just it seems guys are more willing to express their opinions, opening them up to debate even if they are (of course in the minds of others) ill-informed. there was a clear demonstration of why there are more men than women in politics. nice to see sexism is dead and buried. :rolleyes:
all my humble opinion, of course :D
but thatnks to abaya for starting a good thread which didn´t seem to end too well...

For me, the clearest point was that the women of TFP have opinions, clear and individual, and OUR way of debating is preventing us from learning what they think.
Not a method for the best possible chance at evolving, is it? I WANT TO hear different opinions. I sure as hell don't think I'm always right, does anyone, really?

what is "our way."? i particularly loved comments like "the us vs. them mentality" which is exactly what was propagated in that thread. somewhat hypocritical in my view. there is nothing stopping ANYONE from expressing their opinion in any of the forums here (except ladies´ lounge but we´ll overlook that ;) ) except if people think their opinion is not worthy of being heard. as the saying goes: "speak up or forever hold your peace." i really don´t care if the person who is making the point is male or female. i care about the point and will argue the point yet somehow there is some sort of "us vs them" attitude. usually that sort of mindset will lead to that sort of reality. perhaps it has already. as far as i can see there is no sign on any of the threads stating that women are not wlecome.

Try reading their thread. I wouldn't think there are very many atavistic men on this forum.
While there may be no "Not welcome" signs posted, perhaps there are signs we aren't grasping. I know for a fact I can argue like hell with you, name call and all the rest, and then go hang out after or whatever without leftover resentment. I know that, I think you know that. I'm just not sure most women get that (ladies, please don't flame me for that, just gently show me the error of my ways).
My point is that evidently there is a gap here. It exists. I want to know why, and I would hope there is a remedy (I'm just a tad idealistic, perhaps).

i´m not sure i get your 1st sentence. i´m not going to assume you mean you think i haven´t read their thread. my basic point is that it seems like there is a request to stifle debate so that a few extra people can join in for a fun time agreeing with each other. politics will always be divisive. in case it hasn´t been noticed i myself am a rare contributor to political debates and this is because many times i feel that others are able to express my sentiments better than me but if i have a point and there is an empty space it is my responsibility to express myself. this has nothing to do with the sexes but if people want it to then i reserve the right to disagree wholeheartedly.

but to go back to your point: i´m not a fan of the name calling stüff and i know most ppl here know it´s conterproductive. it was intersting that it was bought up in the ladies´thread rather than the ladies taking it up with the people in question.

the "irony" of the situation has just struck me that we´re forced to discuss this in a tangent in one of the political forums whereas the ladies get their own space to discuss this. i think it´s appropriate that if this discussion is continued it be away from this thread but since there really is no space where it can be discussed (by males) i think it should be terminated. if you feel you have any other points please pm me instead and i will do likewise.

back to teh regular programming. :thumbsup:

edit: sorry, my intention is not to cut you off :)

You're kidding, right? Not about not thinking you're always right, but asking if anyone does, really. Uhm, yea, quite a few make it a point of telling us they're right. And if they can't prove that, they'll tell you you were wrong :p

There are opinions and there are facts. What separates TFP political discussions from other discussions here is that they are often blurred and often strongly held.

Much of what is offered in some discussions are regurgitated tidbits of infotainment from other political sites or pseudo-news sites that support the member's opinion but are presented as facts.

But thats just my opinion....not a fact.

If a guy says he doesn't think he's always right, you can't argue with that. If he's wrong then he's always right. But, then he's wrong. It's too confusing to ponder.

Not feeling cutoff, thanks for the edit!:thumbsup:
Maybe I'll start another thread elsewhere.

:bowdown::icare::wave:

Perception becomes fact when that perception causes action. That is just MY opinion:orly:.

Wow, rmarshall, here's three possibilities:
1. I used to smoke a LOT of pot. You should have sent this to me back then, I would have been able to make more sense of it:suave:

2. Alternatively, it could mean that I do not believe I am infallible, that I am human,
born to make mistakes. What some of those errors are, my fellow human beings
may be able to show me, if they so choose. ;)

3. OR, you are trying too hard rmarshall, take a hot bath and relax.:D

This thread is about "President Elect Barack Obama." I'd like to see it get back on track. It would be better to have a discussion about discussions in a separate thread. Thanks :)

Funny, my interpretation of Pig's comment was that the comments being made about race were taking place in a vacuum, not that they were empty-headed. But perhaps he'll return to clarify.
Thumbs down on this comment. This attitude is exactly part of the problem.

Otherwise, agreed with Shakran. Grolsch, would be great to discuss this elsewhere.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Shakran is right. New thread is here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...scussions.html
'nuff said.

I came across these graphics today and thought they were interesting. I can remember seeing the 2004 graphic shortly after the 2004 election and was interested to see just how "purple" the US is. It doesn't look like it has really changed all that much.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creativ...merica2004.gif


http://www.creativeclass.com/creativ...le-america.png


I was looking at some other stats prior to the election that suggested this election would be won or lost in the urban centres of the swing states. That ultimately this election was an Urban vs. Rural election. From some of the stats I have seen post election, it played out that the cities were the places that Obama won. What was fascinating was just how few urban votes he needed to gain on 2004's results to win a state.

State Metro Increase to Win

NM 0.008414497

IA 0.009344614

OH 0.021970032

NV 0.02706302

FL 0.051198009

CO 0.0512231

MO 0.082884769

VA 0.09209499

NC 0.135344697

WV 0.170061948

IN 0.22009237

MT 0.313605308

ND 0.394913127

Can someone explain how these comments are not racist?

"God has vindicated the black folk," the Rev. Shirley Caesar-Williams said as a member of her Raleigh congregation, Mount Calvary Word of Faith Church, brandished a flag and another marched among the pews blowing a ram's horn.

"Too long we've been at the bottom of the totem pole, but he has vindicated us, hallelujah," the Grammy-winning gospel singer cried. "I don't know about you, but I don't have nothing to put my head down for, praise God. Because when I look toward Washington, D.C., we got a new family coming in. We got a new family coming in. And you know what? They look like us. Amen, amen. They look like us."

"I am so happy," she said. "I cried so much. I never thought that in this lifetime I would live to see an African-American become president of these United States."



What would be the reaction if white people were saying these things if a white President had been elected? Why is there a double standard?



Churches across America reflect on Obama election - Yahoo! News

RALEIGH, N.C. – Jubilation, pride and relief permeated pews and pulpits at predominantly black churches across the country on the first Sunday after Barack Obama's election, with congregrants blowing horns, waving American flags and raising their hands to the heavens.

"God has vindicated the black folk," the Rev. Shirley Caesar-Williams said as a member of her Raleigh congregation, Mount Calvary Word of Faith Church, brandished a flag and another marched among the pews blowing a ram's horn.

"Too long we've been at the bottom of the totem pole, but he has vindicated us, hallelujah," the Grammy-winning gospel singer cried. "I don't know about you, but I don't have nothing to put my head down for, praise God. Because when I look toward Washington, D.C., we got a new family coming in. We got a new family coming in. And you know what? They look like us. Amen, amen. They look like us."

In the historically black New York City neighborhood of Harlem, Obama buttons and T-shirts were as prevalent in the pews as colorful plumed hats, while in a church in the former capital of the Confederacy, a young girl handled a newspaper with a photo of Obama and the headline, "Mr. President."

At Los Angeles' oldest black church, ushers circulated through the aisles with boxes of tissues as men and women, young and old, wept openly and unabashedly at the fall of the nation's last great racial barrier.

And on the day that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famously called "the most segregated day of the week," black and white Christian clergy members asked God to give Obama the wisdom and strength to lead the country out of what many consider a wilderness of despair and gloom.

At Hungary Road Baptist Church in a working-class suburb of Richmond, Va., the service was part celebration, part history lesson, led by a pastor who had felt the sting of the Jim Crow South. The Rev. J. Rayfield Vines Jr., pastor of the predominantly African-American congregation, paused briefly as he recalled the indignities he endured but did not bow to while growing up Suffolk, in southeastern Virginia.

"I was there when you had ride in the back of the bus," Vines said under a simple cross illuminated by eight light bulbs. "I was there when you went to the department store and you couldn't try on the clothes. I was there when they had a colored toilet and a white toilet."

The pastor said he shared his humiliations Sunday to help give those "who had not tasted the bitterness of segregation ... an idea why we all shouted."

Inside Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, member Sheila Chestnut, 61, proudly wore a rhinestone Obama pin on her suit lapel.

"I am so happy," she said. "I cried so much. I never thought that in this lifetime I would live to see an African-American become president of these United States."

When the Rev. Calvin Butts invited the congregation to stand up "and give God praise for the election," several hundred churchgoers rose as one, lifted their hands and gave a sustained cheer, then chanted, "Yes we can! Yes we can!"

At Apostolic Church of God on Chicago's South Side, less than two miles from Obama's home, jubilant Sunday services were peppered with references to the election and calls to be grateful for his victory.

"We thank the Lord for this second Sunday (in November) after the first Tuesday," Dr. Byron Brazier said to resounding applause and cheers from the mostly black congregation. "This is a wonderful time to be alive."

Obama spoke at Apostolic on Father's Day in his first address to a congregation after leaving his longtime church, Trinity United Church of Christ, following inflammatory remarks there by his former longtime pastor and others.

In Los Angeles, tears flowed freely at the First AME Church during the raucous two-hour service of house-busting music and prayer. There were some white and yellow faces among the congregants, and the Rev. John J. Hunter felt the need to let them know they were not being left out.

"The smiles on our faces are not gloating looks of victory," he said. "The smiles on our faces are not the sign or any symbol that it is now our time and our chance to get even. Rather, the smiles on our faces are expressions of thanksgiving."

At a white church in Mississippi, where roughly nine in 10 whites voted for Republican John McCain, the scene was more muted.

The neighborhood around the Alta Woods United Methodist Church in Jackson has seen its demographics shift from white to black in recent decades, and most of the parishioners have moved to the suburbs. While the Rev. David W. Carroll recognized Obama's election as a "historic shift," he spent just as much time praising McCain's patriotism in defeat.

"As the crowd began to boo a little bit ... he quieted them down and said, 'Now is not my time, but I'm an American first and I will serve the president-elect,'" he said. "In a loss, he showed us still how he could win through his service."

In his Web message last week, the Rev. Gregg Matte of Houston's mostly white First Baptist Church decried a society that has turned to government as its savior. "Today," he wrote, "Hollywood is our pastor, technology is our Bible, charisma is our value and Barack Obama is our President."

But from the pulpit Sunday, Matte asked the 1,000 or so mostly white faces staring back at him to "lift up President-elect Obama" even if he wasn't their choice on Tuesday.

"Regardless of whether you voted for him or not, he's now our president come Jan. 20," he said. "So we're going to come behind him and pray for him and pray for wisdom, that God will give him wisdom and be able to really speak to his heart."

Perhaps nowhere was the weight of history more palpable Sunday than at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, from whose pulpit King spread his message of inclusion and across from which he lies entombed.

When the Rev. Raphael G. Warnock tried to put into words what it meant for Obama to win Virginia, where the first American slaves landed nearly 400 years ago, his words were drowned out by applause and cheers from a capacity crowd whose faces captured the spectrum of the human rainbow.

"Barack Obama stood against the fierce tide of history and achieved the unimaginable," he said. "But he did not get here by himself. Give God some credit. He is the Lord."

But while he told the congregation that it was a time for celebration, he also reminded them it was a serious time.

"We still have a whole lot of work to do," he said. "You have two little girls who will grow up in the White House. Around the corner, you have two little girls who will grow up in a crack house."

Among those in attendance was the slain civil rights leader's sister, Christine King Farris. She was reminded of her brother's prescience.

"As he predicted the night before he left us, 'I may not be with you, but as a people we will reach the promised land,'" she said stoically. "That promised land was realized Tuesday. Yes, it is our promised land."

You know... I really don't think you understand that racism is not just a skin colour thing. It is also dependent on a position of power... one race over another.

For blacks to be celebratory over a black man gaining the highest office in the US is not racist. It is celebrating an idea that a group of people (in this case a racial group) has managed to overcome hundreds (thousands?) of years of oppression to gain something nobody thought would be possible. What they are celebrating is increasing equality. Another step in the direction where racism is *not* an issue.

This is not a double standard. It would be a double standard if there was equality amongst the races. There isn't. We are not there yet.

When will we get there? We have black politicians in Congress. Black people run multi-million dollar businesses. Black people have been astronauts, doctors, lawyers, Secretaries of State, college professors, firemen, policemen, you name it.

And now we have a black man as the soon-to-be leader of the free world.

When do we reach a point where we as a society do not tolerate people celebrating the color of their skin?

yes, abaya and charlatan have summed up exactly what i was implying with the vacuum chamber picture. these discussions on racial aspects - much like the discussion about a year ago about a predominantly white fraternity in pennsylvania (i think?) - always sound more rational when they are taken out of the context of historic discrimination, generational poverty, racial symbolism, and the like. i am personally somewhat incredulous that someone, in this case timalkin (but i'm sure the sentiment is held by others as well), would honestly think that black people in the united states wouldn't feel a certain amount of pride and excitement over the election of the first black president. or that black people wouldn't predominantly want to vote for someone who was black, given that a majority of black people found him to be a viable or perhaps exceptional candidate.

when you put the possibility of a black candidate ascending to the white house inside the context of the history of black/white race relations in the united states, i think it's impossible not to be proud and excited that we were able to elect a black person to the presidency. i think this is a perfectly understandable human reaction, and i can see no way to demonize it. it's a big deal, and i don't think people are wrong to recognize it as such.

i did not intend to call anyone empty headed. i would posit that i, perhaps obviously, have a different opinion on the matter, and therefore would find the contrary opinion/analysis to be incomplete or lacking in depth, however. if that is empty-headed, then i suppose i can go with that.
-----Added 9/11/2008 at 08 : 25 : 52-----
My opinion? Hopefully never, as I think celebration of whatever you happen to be is a wonderful thing. I think more celebration of the diverse "things" we are would be fantastic.

I agree with Charlantan.

Racism is not a racial group celebrating the success of one of its own.

Racism is a dominant group using that dominance and a belief in their racial superiority, either individually or institutionally, to discriminate against or intimidate a less dominant group based solely on race.

Whenever it is, I don't think you, as a white person, can answer that question.

Absolutely. we have come a long way considering that the first 16 US presidents could have legally owned Obama as a slave.

There is cause for celebration but there is also cause to recognize that this historic event hasnt eliminated racism in America.

My guess is that the time a non-black asks, "haven't we done enough, yet?" is around the time that question is actually answerable in the affirmative.

And we have morons like Douglas Sadler of the North Iowa Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who are mad because it's no longer the White House.

We will get there when people stop worrying about the color of someone's skin for anything other than suspect identification (5'4 white male) or medical reasons (certain races are more susceptible to certain maladies).


So long as people are not allowed to answer questions based on the color of their skin, we know we aren't there yet.

Exactly what he said.
Nice way of putting it, shakran. I will always be proud of my skin, I think you should be of yours, Obama of his, and so on....
-----Added 10/11/2008 at 09 : 31 : 54-----
I found this article interesting. It gives some insight into the life of a President.
One part says he wants to remove the plasma screen from the Lincoln bedroom
because he wants guests to "read". Man, I make love to my wife for sure in that
room. Or myself, if I was alone.
The part about Quayle is precious.

Here's the original:Barack Obama: What life will be like for new US President - mirror.co.uk


Barack Obama: What life will be like for new US President

If Michelle Obama thought the past 22 months on the election trail were tough, she ain't seen nothing yet... On January 20 when husband Barack gets the keys to The White House, life for America's new First Family will change forever.

Today we explain exactly how...

SECURITY
Barack Obama - Secret Service codename Renegade - is now the most guarded man on the planet.

Even when he goes to the loo, bodyguards stand outside it.

And when he travels by motorcade there are a dozen identical cars - so potential assassins won't know which one he is in.

The President-elect will also have to get used to handing his glass to a Secret Service agent every time he has a drink outside the White House. The agent carries a small bag in which to pop the glass and later he destroys it.

The idea is to ensure that no unauthorised person has access to the Presidential DNA, but it is not clear how an enemy would use it.

Obama will be given a set of panic buttons: One for his pocket, one on his desk and one beside his bed. They are credit card-shaped and simply have to be squeezed to summon a posse of agents.

At one time, the President and Vice-President were given three-inch-high models of the Washington Monument to put beside their beds. They had simply to knock them over to summon the guards.

But the models were abandoned after Vice-President Dan Quayle - noted for being clumsy - knocked his over late one night while making love to his wife.

In seconds, the door burst open, the lights went on and Mrs Quayle was thrown out of bed to the floor as bodyguards flocked around her husband to ensure his safety.

MOVING HOME
Michelle Obama once called her husband and asked him to pick up some ant traps on his way back from work to tackle an infestation in their Chicago home.

No such domestic trivia will ever bother her again. She is soon to become the mistress of the sixstorey, 132-room White House.

Michelle will have more than 100 domestic staff including her own florist - to change the flowers daily - chefs, drivers and dressers.

Nancy Reagan said that, a month after moving in to the White House, she was surprised when the usher sent up a bill for their food.

She added: "No one told us the President and his wife are charged for every meal, as well as for dry cleaning, toothpaste and toiletries. Five minutes after Ronnie came home and hung up his suit, it would disappear from the closet to be pressed, cleaned or brushed."

President Reagan said it was like living in an eight-star hotel but Harry Truman complained the place was a "glamorous prison".

DECORATION
Michelle will be given a budget of £150,000 to redecorate and make the First Family feel at home.

She's pledged to give the decor an African-American twist with vibrant colours and fabrics - and Barack wants to remove the plasma TV from the famous Lincoln bedroom. Instead, he wants guests to read.

Barack will have to decide which desk he will use in the Oval Office.

Friends say it will be the same desk picked by John F Kennedy - the "Resolute Desk" presented by Queen Victoria in 1880.

Another of Michelle's tasks will be to pick out the state china. But she's been warned not to go over the top - Nancy Reagan was slated for splashing out Û1m on china.

COOKING
One great perk will be having 25 chefs at the Obamas' disposal.

Michelle will be asked to email the head chef a list of the President's favourite dishes and new desserts will be created in his honour.

Advertisement - article continues below »
Click here to find out more!

Former pastry chef Roland Mesnier, who served for 25 years, once made a 2ft gingerbread version of the White House for Laura Bush, said in 2007: "Every First Lady will be demanding when they come to the White House. They want things done their own way."

SPORT
To help him keep in shape, Barack will build an indoor basketball court - to replace the bowling alley that Richard Nixon installed.

And President Obama will invite professional basketball stars to join him "shooting hoops".

Franklin D Roosevelt built a pool in the White House, Dwight D Eisenhower a putting green and Bill Clinton had a running track on the edge of the south lawn.

So the new president is only following tradition. But the Secret Service bodyguards have already warned him not to think of cycling around Washington, as he did as a senator - it would be too risky.

But he will make full use of the White House gym to lift weights most mornings and the billiards room to relax some nights.

SCHOOLS
Daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, seven, are expected to go to one of the many private schools in Washington.

Favourite is Sidwell Friends school attended by Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea.

The risk of the girls being kidnapped is very real, so rather than their usual "sleep-over parties" with pals at the Chicago home of grandma Marian Robinson, the girls will have visitors over.

"We may see sleep-overs at the White House," said Verna Williams, a student pal of Michelle.

It is thought Michelle's mum Mrs Robinson will also move in to stay near the children.

CHURCH
One of the toughest problems the family will face is picking a church. They have a deep Protestant faith and will want to attend church every Sunday.

They may even decide to go to several different churches in Washington, including the Anglican one just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

PETS
White House pets - especially dogs - are popular with voters.

In his acceptance speech, Obama promised his girls a new puppy to take with them to their new home.

Mr Obama later said he wanted a dog from a rescue home, saying "shelter dogs are mutts - like me".

Former Presidential pets have included Bill Clinton's chocolate labrador Buddy and his cat Socks.

George W Bush has two Scottish Terriers - Miss Beazley and Barney, who became an internet star when a videocam was attached to his collar and his adventures were posted on the White House website.

Ronald Reagan's dog Lucky loved chasing reporters and was dispatched to the family ranch owing to his behaviour. More unusually, John F Kennedy kept parakeets.

HOLIDAYS
To get away from it all, the Obamas will have access to the Sequoia - a 150-ton yacht built in 1925.

John F. Kennedy celebrated his final birthday onboard and Richard Nixon famously played God Bless America on the ship's piano after deciding to resign.

Even though ex-President Jimmy Carter had the boat sold in a public auction, the yacht is still available for use by the White House.

But trips to their old family home in Chicago will have to be vetted by security officials. A fence will be put up round the home with a live-in guard on duty 24/7.

The secluded Camp David residence will be available for some down-time where the family will be able to ski and relax - but with a team of bodyguards in proximity.

Vice-President Dan Quayle set off panic alarm while making love to his wife..security rushed in and threw her out of bed

I like how they mention the Dan Quayle thing twice.

Sort a Dan Quayle thing to do, wasn't it:orly:?

Not to disrupt the current flow of conversation, but I really enjoyed looking at this photostream on Flickr that offers a behind-the-scenes look of the Obama family on Election Night: Election Night 11-04-08 - a set on Flickr

Thank you for sharing these, Snowy. They are all beautiful photos, but there is one of Obama hugging his daughter Malia close, on stage, and it is just a gorgeous moment. Whatever his legacy as president ends up being (though I'm quite willing to bet that it will be a great one), I have no doubt in my mind that this, right here, is a good man who loves his family dearly. And I don't take that for granted in the lives of our presidents, or anyone, really. How refreshing it is to see this.

the photoset was a good find. mindyou try going through all the sets - there seems to be eleventy billion up there but it is nice to see the human side to someone who will be running the world. odd to see him and his wife holding hands yet sitting on the opposite side of the couch...

Eh, are you sure that wasn't his mother-in-law? I remember one photo of him holding hands with her, across the couch...

Yes, I do believe the photo lotsofmagnets is referring to is Obama holding his MIL's hand.

I'm glad others appreciated it; I think the photos offer a rare glimpse of the Obamas as a family in a more private setting, and I liked being able to see the family's reaction to the news. I noticed they chose to watch NBC! :)

You're right. White people are so inherently different that they cannot make an objective decision about race.

We should let Jesse Jackson decide, a man who would call racism if a white dog refused to sniff a black dog's anus. He has a vested interest in seeing equality, right? I'm sure he's waiting for that day so he can finally retire and enjoy his millions.

it's more like: the group that historically fucked over another group of people isn't qualified to tell the group who's been fucked over that they've been made up to. Try it with your girlfriend sometime, piss her off and then announce that you're tired of apologizing and you've done enough. see how far that gets you....

timalkin, you occur to me as being a particularly angry individual.

:bowdown:

Because I'm not a liberal apologist?

I believe in absolute equality of all races, all of the time. I don't understand why that is such a hard pill to swallow. I have never owned slaves, and I don't know anybody who owns slaves or ever has. Slavery sucked, but it happened a long time ago and not to anybody living today.

When I see a black person, I don't see a color. I see a human being that bleeds red, just like I do. I'm forced to see a black person's color because a lot of people make it a huge issue.

It's a never-ending cycle. If you don't like giving a racial group certain privileges, you're labeled as a racist. If you like giving a racial group certain privileges, you're encouraging more and more importance to be placed on a genetic trait that means nothing.

I don't care that our President-elect is black, just like I don't care that he's Christian, has two kids, or likes to play basketball. All that should matter is whether he can do the job.

It doesn't matter to you that this is false? That minorities are manifestly less well off in the United States than white males? It's all well and good to claim that you believe in equality; it's less good if you believe unequal groups are already equal, such that we have no obligation to help them.

but history's a bitch, ain't it?
you are a historical product who operates in an ideological environment that enables you, as one of your historically-specific features, to pretend to yourself that history does not matter because, as you so daintily put it:

but you can't make history go away simply by hiding from it----whether consciously or through ignorance, it hardly matters---it stays where it is despite your wish that you could find a level of being so superficial as to not have it weigh on you--and because it doesn't go away, history becomes yet another persecuting Other, and the Victim is not the folk who were objectively fucked over--and not just by slavery, but by reconstruction, by an entire system and/or culture built on the basis of reconstruction, which was only gradually undermined across the 1950s and 1960s---and which persists today in more dimensions that you would care to think about---rather *you* become the ultimate victim of history, the poor petit bourgeois who wants nothing more than to exist in a tiny sliver of reality and be left alone, but who just can't do it because, no matter how hard he (typically he) tries, the past just won't go away.

it is amazing to me that this shallower than shallow view of the world ever got any traction, and i look forward to the day when it finally returns to the jurassic park of reactionary ideologies that is the vast American Backwater whence it came.

timalkin... if you believe that racism is a minority group celebrating the extraordinary achievement of one of its own is racism....you dont dont understand racism.

If you believe that giving discriminated against minority groups "certain privileges" when it fact what is attempted to be given and achieved is equal access....you dont understand racism.

Gee, I guess it's mighty nice of white folks to lend a helping hand, because of course a black person couldn't succeed without it.

What would black people do without white people there to help them out? Good thing whites allowed President-elect Obama to run for the job. He better not disappoint them, or else white people won't allow any other non-whites to run in the future.

Do you care that, that despite recent achievements, blacks are still discriminated against in employment, education, housing, health care.......for no other reason than the color of their skin?

No, because you actually come across sounding extraordinarily angry. Your tone and attitude come through quite clearly in the language you use.
rb, excellent post. One of your best, in my opinion. :thumbsup:

You don't seem to think that a black racist can exist.

From dictionary.com:

rac⋅ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

My definition seems to have support. White people giving special privileges to black people is a type of racism. It implies that black people are so inherently inferior that they can't produce significant achievements on their own.

Sadly, we live in different Americas....if you cant see that your numbers 1 and 2 still exist in our white dominated society...both at an in institutional level and individual level.

Correcting those inequalities is not a "special privilege to black people."

Black people had been rendered inferior many years ago. I'm sure you're aware of the history. Unfortunately, the day the slaves were emancipated, they're weren't admitted into the best colleges, nor given any other human rights. These had to be earned, unlike the rights of the white man, and the black man is still working to catch up.

You may know this, intellectually, but you don't seem to want to believe that true equality and racism is still a long, long way off because so many people want to believe what you want to believe.

Hell, look at the idiot in office now. How hard did he work to get where he is? Obama? You can bet your ass he's been working his at least twice as hard in order to prove himself and get to the same place.

If one interprets 1 strictly enough, even acknowledging the existence of racism is racist (which I guess explains timakin's attitude in this thread).

this is a better dictionary definition, from the oed:

there are so many crappy dictionaries.
they are not all the same.

if you interpret the definitions of racism in the way that you are, then it becomes useless as a discussion point. i don't think any of the 'liberal apologists" are saying that black people are 'inherently inferior,' nor would they likely advocate for a government based on that assumption, which is why the conversation is something is creating a whistling affect as we all participate in a conversation which consists of not making points with each other. i would argue that the 'liberal apologists' are arguing that black people are, speaking in short-hand (abaya and raveneye could probably discuss the concepts of race at this point if they wanted), more or less inherently black, but not inherently inferior. thus, historically it is bad that They have been systemically denied equal access, opportunity, etc. that part of the conversation is probably a bit of posthumous equine lashing.

i don't think it's possible that you can really abstract yourself to the point that you truly and completely are unaware of another person's race, anymore than i can. it's ingrained in so many things that occur in your interactions that i don't think this is possible. regardless, i think the original point is that the idea that black americans being happy, proud, excited, whatever - that a black american has finally been elected to the presidency is perfectly normal. as would the excitement on the behalf of women if hillary clinton, and to some extent sarah palin, had been elected to the presidency/presidency-in-waiting. on a base level, it would be like saying that americans wouldn't be excited to see michael phelps win 8 gold medals. or black people (or maybe thai people) being excited about tiger woods winning the pga, or the masters. or the us hockey team in 1980 winning the gold. we naturally form groups, whether we like it or not, and we are excited when a group we belong to gains a level of previously unattained status.

i find your posts, timalkin, to be full of what i consider to be simplifications that tend to understate the historic treatment of blacks in america. no, america did not invent slavery. no, you don't have any direct guilt over slavery. neither do i. but i do recognize that some aspects to my social interaction are governed by the systems in which i exist and attempt to navigate. no one is asking you to feel 'guilty,' but that's a long way from simply recognizing the current political events in their historical perspective and allowing them to be appreciated from a human, and perhaps humane, viewpoint.

exactly what is it that irritates you so much? i don't get it.

A black person has attained what is arguably the most powerful position the world has ever known.

What else do white people need to do in order to "correct the mistakes of the past?" How many more black Presidents, Secretaries of State, Congressmen, Governors, doctors, lawyers, etc. do we need to have before everybody is even?

If not now, when? The answer to that question is "never," based on most of the responses in this thread. If the answer to that question is left up to black people, of course the answer will be "never." Why would they ever give up the privileges that have been bestowed upon them?

Liberal apologists have created a politically-correct monster that will never stop.

One man rising above and becoming President doesn't erase the reality that millions of other Black Americans are still struggling.

this is obscene.
there's a level of ignorance that really is not acceptable--you've found it.

I would argue that point. While the weapons at hand could destroy the earth, there are a helluva lot of safeguards in the way of any ONE person deciding arbitrarily to use them.
Clinton's administration shows how little power a President truly has, if the opposing party is sufficiently motivated to stop them.

As to the apologists, liberal or not, there is A LOT we in the West have to apologize for. Don't you wonder why "Death to America" is on the lips of many? It's not just the power we possess, but rather how we are PERCEIVED to use it. The perception of Obama around the world provides some relief from the economic and political imperialism we've wrought upon the less powerful.

Understanding where the resentments lie, and getting to the root of them, will go far to prevent Sept. 11's from happening again. Won't totally stop them, but will create conditions wherein the terrorists will having a smaller pool to draw from. If we are just, other cultures will police their own extremists to a greater degree than they do today.

Timalkin, your type of thought is the best friend the extremists have.

In my opinion.

Whatever. Everybody knows racism ended with pilot of the Cosby Show.

I would only add that the struggle that millions of persons of color in the US still face is not a result of lack of effort but a result of barriers that still exist.

Those racial barriers may not be as overt as a generation ago, but they exist nonetheless.
-----Added 10/11/2008 at 09 : 45 : 03-----
Unfortunately, its clear that ignorance and intolerance still exists as well.

Great find, Snowy! I especially love the photo of Obama hugging his wife and waving - those smiles are amazing.

He goes a bit far, but there is a shred of truth in what he says. Only a shred, mind you.

Affirmitive action is, in fact, a bad idea. Placing racial quotas on hiring managers is exactly what MLKJr. said his dream foresaw not happening anymore. If you have to hire a certain percentage of minority then you are required to take race into account when hiring people - and that flies in the face of what MLK wanted.

This has actually created problems for government contractors. 30-some years ago when Ben Rich's Skunk Works was building the F-117 stealth fighter, EEO laws required him to hire a certain percentage of his engineers from local ethnic minorities. When grilled as to why he had not complied, he said "None of them went to engineering school."

The consideration when hiring someone should be whether or not they are the most qualified of all the applicants for that job. Once you bring racial quotas into it, you can no longer make that your consideration, and several problems crop up:

What if only white males apply for the job?
What if the minority applicants are genuinely less qualified for the position than the non-minority?
Why the hell are we worrying about race in 2008?

Until we achieve a true colorblind society, which means not only that KKK-esque attitudes of blacks being inferior to whites no longer exist, but also that philosophies dictating that minorities should get points for being a minority no longer exist, we will continue to have a racial divide in this country, whether the "racists" or the "liberal apologists" like it or not.

the american educational system is an example of institutionalized discrimination--on the basis of socio-economic class position. racism and class have been intertwined in the united states for much of it's history.

the reason that affirmative action is as superficial as it is follows from the illusion that racism could be separated from it's having been mapped onto the class structure and could be "addressed" without addressing class.

educational opportunities should be equal for everyone---funding should be flat, not tied to local property taxes. there can be different levels of schools, but access to them should not be tied to the income level of a child's parents. there is no equality of access to education, there is no equality of access to opportunity--what there is instead is an unbelievable waste of human potential.

to my mind, the way educational opportunities are distributed as the direct reflection of the american class order and it's spatial arrangement is a very good example of the kind of arrangement that has to be changed before the united states will come anywhere near what it says it already is.

i support affirmative action because it is better than nothing--but it is also a shallow 60s liberal bit of legislation designed to address symptoms without touching any of the causes. it is better than nothing because, despite its superficiality, it is a recognition of the history that the social order had made, even as it pretends that if you make a gesture and nothing more to address racism you make the rest of it ok.

as an aside, i've long been more sympathetic to malcolm x than to martin luther king.

While I enjoyed the rest of the post, I particularly agree with this part.

I'm reminded of an effort at the University of Texas Law School to increase the number of Hispanic students graduating with JDs. The law school lowered their standards for acceptance for individuals of Hispanic descent (whatever that means). After evaluating the graduation rates after several years, they discovered that graduation rates had not changed for Hispanics. More Hispanic students were accepted, but they graduated at the same rate. This effort was not "better than nothing". Instead of helping students, they saddled many with a year or two of student loans and no degrees to show for it. Like you said, they addressed the symptoms without touching the causes. (They did, however, increase tuition revenue). Somewhere I have a reference...

UT also has the "10% rule". If you graduate in the top ten percent of your high school class, you are guaranteed acceptance to UT if you apply. Another band aid to cover poor primary and secondary education...

I don't interpret the 16th amendment as such. SCOTUS has ruled that Income is defined as "Gains". The have also defined your labor as "an even exchange of goods (money) for services). Hence, you did not "gain" anything from your labor - you evenly exchanged your labor for money. If you take your money and invest it in property or stock, then you can have "gains" on your investment and it is fair game.
-----Added 14/11/2008 at 02 : 28 : 31-----
If this is the case - I would like the NAACP to compensate me for the death of 3 relatives who fought for the Union army to free their people and give Obama this opportunity. I mean, my people certainly didn't "fuck" his people, we helped them immensely - gave our lives doing it. If we are going to repair what we did to them, I think they need to repair the sacrifice my family made too.

Better yet, let's just call it even and move on.
-----Added 14/11/2008 at 02 : 29 : 30-----
Apparently, at least one more...
-----Added 14/11/2008 at 02 : 32 : 40-----
Why is that "my fault" and why do I have to pay for that?

Obama's position in this country is proof positive that the opportunities for any person in America is limitless. I can't make someone take the opportunities available to them.

While certainly not presenting his views in the most polite of manner, I find myself in agreement with timalkin on my opposition to affirmative action for the exact reasons shakran posted.

That doesn't really imply everything else timalkin derives from this, but on that note we are in agreement.

The fact that a discussion over Obama's election turns into a basis for arguing against affirmative action is evidence enough to me that you guys just don't really have much of a clue about what you're talking about...except that you don't like affirmative action. I mean, you seem to have the idea that you're opposed to it locked down fairly tight, but for someone who claims to be "comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve" it'd be interesting to see you muster an argument sans non sequitur in support of your position.

I'm not even sure what you think you're "paying" for? I've certainly never paid anything to a woman or black person. Do you guys even know that the largest group that benefits from affirmative action is white women? I'm simply amazed at the historical trends between women and blacks and who gets their rights first. Who won the right to vote first? I'd have to look up the timeline, since I can't remember whether blacks or women were first to be admitted into universities...given they were white, male only for a good long while. And during this primary season, I was watching to see if the 1st black/woman issue would repeat itself the same way as suffrage...and it did! I was a bit shocked over the lack of dialog about this. It's kind of stunning actually, since Blacks comprise a minority of the population in both the numerical and power sense, whereas women comprise a power minority but a numerical majority of the population.

I wish I could live in your fantasy world, where the effects of slavery ended 100 years ago. If I did, then at least I could make more sense out of the "reparations for civil war casualties" argument. I wonder how many people have this thought rattling around in their minds: if Obama were much darker his life course and ultimately this election would have had a different trajectory. That's not even a stab at whites, that's a fact that even blacks still need to work out among themselves. The fact is, we may get a woman nominee soon, but we'll not see another black candidate for a good long time. If I had to guess, I would suspect we won't elect another black president for 20+ years.

+1

I dont know a lot about his policies (not being American), and Im not actually sure he has many... but I have to say that just listening to his speeches, Obama is not only the most inspirational politician I've ever seen in my life time - I would say he was the only inspirational politician Ive ever known in my lifetime.

On the race issue, one of the people they had on the BBC election coverage said that the first 16 president's of America legally could have owned Barrack Obama as a piece of property. And now he's president elect. I always thought Jesse Jackson was kind of a buffoon - but seeing pictures of Jackson at some rally just standing their crying after the results came in... there must still be many people like him, who lived through a time where blacks and whites were in segragated schools in some states and so on... he could never have imagined he would have lived to see this.