Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pangloss

Obama's Pastor -- is Obama a secret radical, or is this just guilt by association?

Recommended Posts

America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

 

Well at least I gotta admire you for being honest about your prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well at least I gotta admire you for being honest about your prejudices.

 

What makes you think it's prejudice? I'm not saying I agree, but I think you're mistaking analysis for advocacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, if he were Muslim, why does that matter?

Second, he's not Muslim, so clearly Physia is not paying attention to fact, but instead being spoon fed lies and regurgitating them here.

 

Nice quote, bascule. Clever. :)

 

Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me.

Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one ;), from the harsh sex also.

 

McCain for president.

 

Well at least I gotta admire you for being honest about your prejudices.

It's an analysis that you must think about. It goes further than your nose, so try to think based on that.

Question yourself of why I said that, then you might disagree with your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me.

Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one ;), from the harsh sex also.

 

Well, your last comment shows me just where your mind truly is on this issue, but for those who choose to be part of a mature society, I share these links to address your first point.

 

 

 

 

Is it perhaps his middle name which scares you, or have you just been lied to with an email smear campaign and simply chosen to believe it blindly and regurgitate it to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need a white president, not a dark one , from the harsh sex also.

 

Now, give us the meat and potatoes on why that is. You said yourself "it's an analysis you must think about", so surely you've thought about it and can discuss it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, your last comment shows me just where your mind truly is on this issue, but for those who choose to be part of a mature society, I share these links to address your first point.

 

 

 

 

Is it perhaps his middle name which scares you, or have you just been lied to with an email smear campaign and simply chosen to believe it blindly and regurgitate it to others?

 

Hardcore Jews are arguably the most racist people on the planet, they are too full of themself to even accept evolution. No offense to Jews, in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hardcore Jews are arguably the most racist people on the planet, they are too full of themself to even accept evolution. No offense to Jews, in general.

 

This is relevant to Barack Hussein Obama's bid to the United States presidency, how?

 

Painters who use broad brushes miss the important details of the scene they wish to portray.

 

Hardcore jews, agentchange? Please. You're smarter than that and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me.

Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one ;), from the harsh sex also.

 

McCain for president.

 

OK, that's just unacceptable. You need to either back that up or knock it off, and the racists addendums just need to be jettisoned right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain for president.

 

Ignoring all the other prejudices and claims in this thread, I'll just make a point for the sake of science (since this is a science forums, though a politics thread):

 

("strong evidence" for mercury being the cause of autism):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/john-mccain-ent.html

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/john_mccain_panders_to_the_mercury_militia.php

 

(not "believing" in evolution): http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/evolution_and_the_hand_of_god.html

 

 

(on abortion, endangered species, stopping the spread of HIV):

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccain-man-of-science.html

 

 

I am not too well versed in American politics, I am learning as I go, but all I *do know* is that if we have another anti-science president, we are all in trouble.

 

 

This actually might be good as another discussion, I just had to insert it in, as the voice of science in a science-forums place.

 

Woman president... "dark skin" (...okay..) president... is America ready? I don't know. We do know what happens when we have a religious zealot anti-science President, though.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain has had a number of policy mis-steps lately. Actually kind of a staggering number of them. It's almost as if he decided it was time to start taking policy positions, but hadn't quite gotten around to talking to an advisor about it. Yesterday Joseph Lieberman had to step up to McCain while he was still at the microphone and correct him after he claimed that Iran (shiites!) was helping Al Qaeda (sunnis!), which of course is their blood enemy!

 

It's more than a little embarassing, and if so much attention wasn't being focused on the Democratic "civil war" at the moment I think it would be getting a lot more attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardcore jews, agentchange? Please. You're smarter than that and you know it.

 

I've known some pretty heavy-hitting Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've known some pretty heavy-hitting Jews.

 

And your point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that not all Jews are one and the same. ;)

Just like not all men are the same, or all women are the same, or all asians are the same, or all black people are the same, or all religious people are the same, or all humans are the same.

 

What difference does it make, then, these distinctions, if they make no true distinction, other than to incite and raise racist and sexist remarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell white guilt overcompensation condition. I guess it's agentchange's turn to get kicked around to neutralize our guilty conscience. Hey, they were good after school specials, but we're grown ups now, so let's drop the indignation pretense huh?

 

And your point is?

 

I think his point is that many Jews are racist, in fact, rolled right into government policy.

 

What difference does it make, then, these distinctions, if they make no true distinction, other than to incite and raise racist and sexist remarks?

 

Well, they're useful for profiling, for one. If a chick robs a liquor store, it's good for everyone to know that, rather than looking for chicks and dudes. Pretty simple really. Same goes for color and other distinguishing features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you think it's prejudice? I'm not saying I agree, but I think you're mistaking analysis for advocacy.

I say it's prejudice because there is no even remote evidence that Senator Obama is Muslim.

 

I've known some pretty heavy-hitting Jews.

 

I assume you mean Shawn Green?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his point is that many Jews are racist, in fact, rolled right into government policy.

 

You know, Pangloss just issued a warning about such statements. I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that the warning was directed at only one individual.

 

Many Jews are racist.

Many Christians are racist.

Many Muslims are racist.

Many (insert group name here) are racist.

 

Racism exists.

 

What is the relevance of the statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, Pangloss just issued a warning about such statements. I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that the warning was directed at only one individual.

 

Issue all the warnings you want, I'm not amputating discussion because you can't tell the difference between objective analysis and racism. Are you denying the perfectly valid perception that Israel's government policies on citizenship are racist? I'm not asking if you agree, and I'm not saying I agree, I'm asking are denying that it's at least a "valid observation"? (Hint: this is a feature of tolerance - where you recognize that while you don't agree with someone else, you also don't dismiss their opinion with false appeals to bigotry).

 

What is the relevance of the statement?

 

The relevance of the statement was to reply to iNow's question about what the point was in agentchange's statement that many jews are racist. If you want the relevance of that statement, you might ask agentchange. I just enjoy the wiggling and squirming of those uncomfortable with candid discussions that involve race and ism, after reading other posts by them about how we all need to "understand" each other, and practice "tolerance" and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Issue all the warnings you want, I'm not amputating discussion because you can't tell the difference between objective analysis and racism. Are you denying the perfectly valid perception that Israel's government policies on citizenship are racist? I'm not asking if you agree, and I'm not saying I agree, I'm asking are denying that it's at least a "valid observation"? (Hint: this is a feature of tolerance - where you recognize that while you don't agree with someone else, you also don't dismiss their opinion with false appeals to bigotry).[/Quote]

 

If you want to say that Israel has crappy, racist policies, say it. How on earth did "hardcore Jews" get dragged into this, as most Israelis are secular?

 

Here are the facts of this discussion: Obama is not a Muslim. There has been no demonstration that his being "dark" is of any importance whatso-ever, and as common sense dictates that it is not, that argument can be dismissed as racist bunk until established otherwise.

 

Hillary Clinton is a woman. There, however, has been no demonstration that her being a woman is of any importance.

 

The relevance of the statement was to reply to iNow's question about what the point was in agentchange's statement that many jews are racist. If you want the relevance of that statement, you might ask agentchange. I just enjoy the wiggling and squirming of those uncomfortable with candid discussions that involve race and ism, after reading other posts by them about how we all need to "understand" each other, and practice "tolerance" and so forth.

 

I think you're just trying to play anti-PC crusader. Ignorant discussion does not equal candid discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to say that Israel has crappy, racist policies, say it. How on earth did "hardcore Jews" get dragged into this, as most Israelis are secular?

 

I don't know that they do. They are certainly racist in the technical sense of the word, but not necessarily by its definition. In other words, the policies on citizenship are based on race, however, I don't think they believe they are "superior". More of a matter of survival - sheer numbers. That's my take anyway.

 

And I can't blame someone for a different take either. On the surface, it really looks bad.

 

Here are the facts of this discussion: Obama is not a Muslim. There has been no demonstration that his being "dark" is of any importance whatso-ever, and as common sense dictates that it is not, that argument can be dismissed as racist bunk until established otherwise.

 

Exactly. Pangloss made a point a long time ago that the best way to deal with an extremist is to give them all the rope they want. I thought that was a good observation and have since seen it work rather well. That's why I dangled rope in Phsyia's face by asking for the meat and potatoes of his/her statments about "dark" presidents.

 

Also, to be fair, I had to give Physia a chance to be purely analytical as well. For instance, just for argument's sake, let's pretend every country in the world hated black people and historically they always nuke countries that elect black presidents. In that case, Phsyia wouldn't be racist in saying a black president would be bad for the country - that would be purely objective survival.

 

Obviously, we don't live in that kind of world, but surely you get my point. I think you have to sure about people's intentions, before you start showing off and playing the self righteous indignation charge. Gee, call me crazy. :rolleyes:

 

I think you're just trying to play anti-PC crusader. Ignorant discussion does not equal candid discussion.

 

I'm playing the anti-PC-stop-discussions-that-are-uncomfortable-before-they-can-get-started crusader. Discussion hasn't happened because the locals here jumped on their ass before it could get started and before their intentions were clear.

 

Tell me what is ignorant about candid discussions on race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm playing the anti-PC-stop-discussions-that-are-uncomfortable-before-they-can-get-started crusader. Discussion hasn't happened because the locals here jumped on their ass before it could get started and before their intentions were clear.

Since you called me out specifically above, I will say that intention was not hard to understand. I cite the following:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=397451&postcount=53

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31891

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31786

 

 

It's not exactly like Physia is a first time poster who I'm railing against randomly because "I feel icky." I laugh at your suggestion, as I'm very open minded to abrasive ideas if they are presented intelligently and for the purpose of making things better. I've read his posts, and I have a good sense of what he means when he says:

 

Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one .

 

 

We're talking about someone running for the President of the United States of America and the best topic of conversation we can come up with is "are they muslim, are they black, or are they female?" It's absolutely disgraceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't recall jumping on you about Physia, but I'll concede that Phsyia is not a first time poster and that you were railing against him/her within the context of their posting history. However, the posts you cite include the ridiculous creationsim vs evolution joke of a post that almost made me puke - however, not racist. It included the "obsession" flick, which I'm not entirely sure isn't just propaganda - not racist. Only the first post did I see a racist comment and you're right, it was a bad one.

 

Physia has gone out of his/her way to make provocative statements and then follow them up with yet more propaganda laced eruptions, not a single bit of supporting logic, which I pretty much expected. I was hoping to get a full scale contribution from Physia getting down to the nuts and bolts of his/her position. It's unique to get that level of pro-war intransigence in here and I really wanted to see Phsyia's extremism fully fleshed out.

 

We're talking about someone running for the President of the United States of America and the best topic of conversation we can come up with is "are they muslim, are they black, or are they female?" It's absolutely disgraceful.

 

Not necessarily. There's a logical case to be made - not one that I would likely agree with, but it's possible to have a position against a black or female president that isn't bigotry, or advocation of such. For instance, some might think a black president won't be taken seriously by other nations, thereby implying a risk to national security and international strength. I don't agree with that at all, but it isn't racism if you do. I think we have to be careful throwing the racist charge around. There's too much of that nowadays. However, if they deserve it, then fire away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't recall jumping on you about Physia, but I'll concede that Phsyia is not a first time poster and that you were railing against him/her within the context of their posting history. However, the posts you cite include the ridiculous creationsim vs evolution joke of a post that almost made me puke - however, not racist. It included the "obsession" flick, which I'm not entirely sure isn't just propaganda - not racist. Only the first post did I see a racist comment and you're right, it was a bad one.

 

Physia has gone out of his/her way to make provocative statements and then follow them up with yet more propaganda laced eruptions, not a single bit of supporting logic, which I pretty much expected. I was hoping to get a full scale contribution from Physia getting down to the nuts and bolts of his/her position. It's unique to get that level of pro-war intransigence in here and I really wanted to see Phsyia's extremism fully fleshed out.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. There's a logical case to be made - not one that I would likely agree with, but it's possible to have a position against a black or female president that isn't bigotry, or advocation of such. For instance, some might think a black president won't be taken seriously by other nations, thereby implying a risk to national security and international strength. I don't agree with that at all, but it isn't racism if you do. I think we have to be careful throwing the racist charge around. There's too much of that nowadays. However, if they deserve it, then fire away.

 

I didn't think I would be agreeing with you on this topic but I am. There is a difference between prejudice (perhaps you simply don't like Black people) and racism (this requires having an advantage or power because of that prejudice). So, a person could be prejudiced (doesn't like Senator Obama because he is Black) and yet not racist (votes for Senator Obama anyway since he is the best candidate). I doubt there are many such people in America but there must be some. That's a lot of hair-splitting, but I can live with it for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, a person could be prejudiced (doesn't like Senator Obama because he is Black) and yet not racist (votes for Senator Obama anyway since he is the best candidate). I doubt there are many such people in America but there must be some. That's a lot of hair-splitting, but I can live with it for now.

 

Well, isn't

doesn't like Senator Obama because he is Black

That's racism, no matter how you flip it. Not liking someone for his skin color and/or/meaning race, is racism.

 

votes for Senator Obama anyway since he is the best candidate

and that would be 'being logical' -- I don't mean to say that voting for obama is logical, I mean to say that voting for the best candidate is. So whoever votes for what he considers to be the best candidate is a matter of logical choice.

 

Disliking someone for his color, regardless of streaks of logical thinking in between, is still racism.

 

*Thoughts*, however, are a person's own business. So are feelings. If someone dislikes blacks because they're blacks, that's their right, as long as that person doesn't do anything to hurt anyone. But that person is still racist.

 

A quiet one, maybe. And his liberties allow for it, sure. But the point is that making a decision about someone due to their *RACE* is RACIST.

 

That's the point of the definition.

 

Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he's black is racist. Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he supports this-and-that causes/laws/issues is not racist, even if those issues are related to black people.

 

Despite politics, and political correctness and whatever else, this is a really big distinction.

 

REALLY. Big.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.