Barak Hussein Obama is an admitted cocaine abuser - Page 2

Do black americans actually have a different culture than white americans?

Serious question.

Your hero George had been no further than Mexico when he became President. Inexperience wasn't a deciding factor then.

No need to be antagonistic, and it didn't really address his point. Bush did have governing experience, at the very least, when he ran for office.

Uh, he had been twice elected to govern the second biggest state in the nation. But let me guess, you'll throw out the next thing on your list of talking points...maybe "the governor of Texas doesn't really have that much authority?" That's always a good one.

" For swing voters, this will be GOLD. It will give voters an excuse not to vote for, Barak Hussein Obama, a black candidate to be frank. Most people don't like saying "I'm not voting for that black Muslim for president", but the decision to do so becomes more palatable when they can justify it by saying "I'm not voting for that coke head... Barak Hussein Obama" - when in the back of their mind they are really thinking that black-Muslim. "


Trust me bucko. Your words will eat you alive here.

Then I guess Lieutenant Governors have more experience that actual Governors do. So why don't we elect more Lt. Governors to the White House than simple statesmen?

http://www.barackobama.com/main.php

Of course. There are many subcultures as well, although it may be more appropriate to consider "black" as the subculture and the environment (north, south, urban, rural, etc) as the main culture.

So, for example, middle-class-west-coast-black-american is probably a pretty decent way to group a couple million people, and it's probably different than both middle-class-west-coast-white-american as well as lower-class-urban-northeastern-black-american.

But the bottom line is that there are definitely cultural divisions between most ethnicities, with all else equal.


Thank you, captain obvious. Been there, and there's not much substance -- if there were, I wouldn't have asked for info. From his website, the only information I could glean is that he's a consummate politician: kissing babies, making promises, and otherwise attempting to do safe things. He seems like a fine guy, but the only real consistent talking point he seems to have is a long-running stand against government corruption. This is admirable, but at the end of the day we should expect our politicians to be honest, and not the other way around.

The only thing edgy about Barack Obama is his name, which is, in other words, a gimmick. I feel like a lot of white dems latch onto him because they think by supporting him, they are somehow defying the wishes of the republicans, who are often labeled as stodgy whites. If you really want to piss off Republicans, support John Edwards or Hillary (who are, strangely enough, both very stodgy whites).

Those aren't legitimate comparisons... meaning the proper control to compare it to is people of the same social class in the locality. Poor urban whites on the west coast have the same 'culture' as poor urban blacks on the west coast. It isn't divided racially at all. Ethnicity also has nothing directly to do with race. For instance, Latin American Culture is race transparent...

Well I'll tell you one thing unlike so many candidates he's only 45 so he won't be applying for medicare anytime soon.

That's not a slam against older people ( I'm 53 myself ). I just think we need some younger blood in there.

Having smoked pot once in your life does not make you a bad person. EVERYBODY makes mistakes. Everybody has lapses of judgment. People shouldn't be scrutinized for errors they made prior that are unrelated to what they are doing now. If Obama was still smoking pot, that would be a problem. He was able to get past his childhood troubles and excel in college and his career. You've got to respect that.

Well again, I really don't care. You're right. I don't know that everything (hypothetically) could be excused, but when it comes to some drug use or alcohol or what not 20 years ago, it shouldn't be an issue. My problem is the stupid media and their creation of this guy. He has no business even being considered as a candidate. He has practically no experience whatsoever. He's a great speaker from what I understand, and he's a decent looking guy. That's really it.

1) Cultural dissimilaties are definitely passed along familial and geographic lines.

2) Black people don't have white children (and vice versa)

3) ethnic groups often live in within localities. This is primarily due to self-segregation, and it perpetuates cultures. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be naturalized hispanic Americans who are well past primary school age, yet don't know English.

Sorry, but for all practical purposes black americans have the exact same culture as white americans. Just because a mechanism exists for reducing convergence of culture, doesn't mean that that convergence hasn't already happened... The children of those non-english speaking hispanic-american children will speak english, wear jeans, eat at pizza hut, worry about paris hilton's successor and practice catholicism like other catholic americans...

A single culture is neither homogenous nor so tenuously attached to people that it disappears in a generation... but it does become assimilated... and the assimilating culture may become a bit less homogenous, but the formerly independent groups cannot justifiably be called different cultures...

Edit: This is written by someone who is a member of a perpetual cultural minority (except in one silly silly nation), though my family may have traditions that vary from most americans, no one would be justified in saying that 'my people' have a different culture...

How do I say this? You're totally wrong. Yeah, that's it.

Black culture in general is completely different in many respects. Ever heard of Black Standard Time? I can tell you that it exists in large numbers, far more than I once believed (that's right..I grew up believing that notion was crap, and was convinced otherwise). There are many exceptions to be sure, but that can be said of any statement about any ethnic group. I don't want to get into a laundry list here, but eating at Pizza Hut and wearing jeans hardly proves anything about "culture."

What the heck is black standard time?

Google doesn't seem to know anything about it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bl...andard+Time%22

BST is the stereotype that black people are always late for work/meetings/dates/school/whatever.

Really? Down here in south Florida, we call that Cuban time. (And incidentally, so do the Cubans)

Again... Why do you even try?

How do stereotypes, which I have personally never witnessed which is odd given that I grew up in an area that was 40% black, define a 'culture'?

I agree its a stereotype, but there is a lot of truth to it from what I've witnessed. I've also talked with people who have had a lot of experience with this...particularly in the south.

Speaking as a north easterner that moved to the south, EVERYONE down here is late going ANYWHERE. I'm the first getting to work, never late for a dinner date even if I think I am, and am much more aggressive on the road than those around me because I want to get where I'm going. It's not a black thing. It's either a southern thing or a Baptist thing

I've heard it referred to as "Bahamas time"

It's hard to qualify anybody you don't know unless the Media qualifies them for you. In my opinion, Barak Obama would be a fairly good candidate because of his power to unite people. When people are united, things get done.

Personally however, I think Gore would be much better for President 2008. He has a clear focus and a lot of initiative. He would be a strong president.

Why does he need more experience? It seems to me the more experience they get, the more crooked they become.

Disagree. Governors tend to get elected President because, for one thing, they have executive experience. The last Senator we had as President was JFK. That's no fluke. Of course, there's always McCain I suppose. But at least he has years in the Senate and has been a strong candidate before.

I am freebasing cocaine RIGHT NOW.

Obama is my man!

I found the real reason not to vote for him. Apparently Obama is a smoker as well.

Nick

I heard that this morning on Diane Rehm.

Can we get back to talking about why BR's post was utterly, utterly brilliant?

Well McCain thinks more troops in Iraq is the answer. That makes him a bad choice in my book. It's kind of like saying " Well I've been pouring gasoline on this fire for an hour and it's still going . So I think the answer is to add a bit more. "

Besides McCain has white hair! We need someone young in there who still can think in a bad situation. Like JFK or like Obama. It's time for something new not the same old crap.

You start and I'll follow. My ADD has kicked in and I don't recall what was brilliant about his post wherever it was in here.

Nick

BR said this to the thread-starter:

Well let me remind you. He basically hit the racist nail on the head by pointing out some people will use anything to support their party. That kind of thinking has worked for most of the Bush Jr. presidency but times ( as I've said are changing ) and that kind thinking will sink anyone nowadays. It's basically part of why the republicans lost the midterms.

Ah yes that... well I do believe I said he sounded like a troll and I haven't seen anything posted since then that would make me think any differently.

Let me put something forward for you and Mid to think about though. This sort of approach that is being put forward by Bacillus. It is clear that it is heavy-handed and pretty clumsy in its implementation.

Perhaps I've had to play politics a little too often in my lifetime but in a instance such as this, sometimes you have to look at who benefits instead of who is doing the hurting.

Let's pretend the general election is here and you had some retard wannabe Republican like Bacillus putting foward the notions that have been aired here. Obviously that would make Republicans look bad. You have an upstart candidate like Mr. Obama who is made to look bad. So who benefits?

Perhaps an old guard, voted for the war and now that doesn't seem so smart, has a crap load of money but no charisma/freshness factor candidate like... Hillary Clinton?

It can be awful fun to get our panties in a bunch. It is fun to point at someone and note that their position is stupid, backward, etc. But instead of just noting who is hurt, perhaps we should also note who is helped. We've watched Republicans and Democrats for example battle to keep Green party candidates on or off the ballot in past elections. There's more than one side to this and I would bet that come general election time if there is some fringe rightist element that wants to note that Barak is black, Muslim, not raised with an American Black experience versus foreign black experience, did cocaine, whatever..... I'm sure they will probably be heard.

However I'm also absolutely sure it won't be mainstream Republicans that are trying to let these voices be heard. I'm sure they will be like those nice Democrats who wanted Nader off the ballot. They will be doing everything in their power to shut guys like Bacillus the hell up because it reflects very badly on them and doesn't even reflect their views. Instead it plays to a caricature or stereotype. Who will be making sure guys like Bacillus are probably heard loud and clear? DLC-Hillary Clinton types who have something to gain and also something to fear.

I think this important to think about because it isn't Republicans who made a Howard Dean or Bill Bradley disappear in the primaries.

Nick

Well the times we live in now are quite simply these. Politicians need to perfom be they democrat or republican. The democrats will see trouble if they show lack of motivation to carry out the will of the voters just like their predecessors. I know some will scoff at this but I think the voting public is tired of rhetoric, inaction, and mudslinging to further the party agenda. Politicians and ad campaigners beware.

These are different times.

Hooo boy. This'll be interesting.


So it's not really about the cocaine. It's that he's black and has Muslim roots. Say it loud, say it proud! Come on, Bacillus!


And I, for one, think you should say more about this kind of thing. Publicly. More loudly. Make posters. Call into the radio shows. Try to get on TV. Post in discussion forums.

This 'strong link to Islam' being... his name.

OK.

And there's no need to be 'frank' about him being black. He is black. We can tell. Just by looking at his little negro face.

In this way, he's a bit like that nice Will Smith guy, or what's his name, Prince. And that weird robo-harpie named after an oil tanker, Condoleeza Rice. And that other black guy, played the trumpet, Martin 'Luther' King. No, the communist general, Colin Powell, I forget. Or was he a boxer?

Anyway. I'm with you on this. Fucking black people with their electability and weird pork and beans.

You don't get it do you. Your ignorance and the very fact that it might even be associated with me is an attack of the worst kind.


What you have put forward is not about controlling the message. Good ideas control the message much more effectively than any of this nonsense you have put forward. If his plan for health care reform or some other nonsense is bad, then you hit it head on. You expose it for what it is and what it will do.

Republicans do promote self interest. They do not promote stupid and hateful interests. So you want to defeat socialized medicine. You say here is how many MRI machines Canada has per capita and here are how many the United States has per capita. You note how long the line is for hip replacements in Canada and how many YEARS you'll be waiting on the list. You note that the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled against the national health care system as depriving people of their basic rights.

You do that and the plan is defeated without any of the nonsense you have put forward here. What you have put forward here requires no thought and plenty of hate be it implicit or explicit. I do not want people who have that as a default state of being in my party. It isn't healthy for the future of the party nor will it build any sort of long term gains.


I have no problem voting for him at all. I'll examine his ideals and as the election approaches I'll compare them to the other candidates. If his are best by my criteria, he gets the vote. The criteria doesn't include being white, being perfect, or even being Christian. Many Democrats won seats this last cycle in part because of a return to economic populism and more specifically a fair trade stance. I've stated in the past and I'll state now that I would have had no problem voting for such candidates.

The most damning thing about your views is that those on the left become enabled to promote economic nationalism and populism and it is seen as a good thing. Someone like Pat Buchanan promotes it on the right and suddenly we are all racists while a Sherrod Brown isn't. Why is this so, because of folks like yourself.


You make it sound like I would somehow excuse the hate-mongers at DU while only condemning yourself. Both should be condemned. When you have folks at DU saying antisemitic remarks because Joe Lieberman is winning, they should be condemned. When someone like you is spitting out hateful remarks you ought to be condemned.

The extremes in both cases are those who appeal to hate instead of to intellect. You seem to confuse extreme with something like enthusiasm and likely so do they. Enthusiasm should engage more brain cells, not be justification for turning them off. I hope you figure that out soon.

Nick

No I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it.