This is massassi remember, nothing negative can be said about anyone outside of your own ethnic background without shaving your head, getting a swastika tattoo, and burning a cross or two.

What if you're christian?

Not realizing or mentioning skin color/facial build would not make a society enlightened. It might just indicate that ethnic affiliation is not a significant social issue. Other factors could still stir up prejudice, such as alternate lifestyles not considered 'traditional'.

If you don't like it I invite you to leave.

notice I specifically said "racial" enlightenment. In other words, as much as we try to toot our own horn and say we're not racist for electing a black man as president, the fact that we pat ourselves on the back for doing so only demonstrates how deep that racism goes. A truly non-racist society would not find it remarkable in the least to elect a black or an asian or a hispanic (etc, etc) person into office.

I don't believe that you can equate post-racism with obliviousness. In my opinion it means a lot more to be able to discuss race and racial issues dispassionately. I don't think a sense of astonishment or relief that a black man can finally become president is racist; rather, I think it's an indication that Americans hold their fellow countrymen in very low regard.

Racism, like war, corruption, crime etc, will NEVER go away. Humans are too stupid to grow up. Especially people who had bad experiences with some one of a different race or a group of people of a different race, this can cause someone to become racist. (Such a case was on tv not long ago, a woman was raped by 3 black man as a child, and developed prejudice agaisnt black people in general because of that). Also, as some one said earlier, we stick to our own race, in most cases. I stick to a mix of races. I never hang out with people who make an issue of out skin color or ethnic race. The only thing we might make an issue out of, is what someone chooses to become.

One thing that I really hate, and I mean hate, is that I can never say I disagree with anything Obama says, because I am immediately called a racist person. Honestly, he's a black (not even that black) president. SO WHAT? I'm not attacking his persona, I'm attacking his ideas.



No, its because it never happened before. Don't make generalizations, not everyone in America is racist.

Social scientists will be pleased to know that their efforts are no longer necessary.

Edit: I think it should be a bannable offense if a member responds to a thread (or a specific post) but very obviously has not read a single word written in it.

I don't have to read an entire thread in order to respond to a statement or a single post.

Are you mad? There'd be no one left!

This. For several decades, the majority of our people have lamented because they thought everyone else was too racist to elect a black person. That sentiment was even clear during the primaries; there was a lot of fear not of having a black president, but of losing the election on account of trying. I guess in this election the right circumstances came along and they were able to prove themselves wrong.

Evidently you also think you don't have to read the statement or single post.

I semi-agree with you. But the problem is, I din't see a sense of astonishment or relief. I see a sense of "let's pat ourselves on the back cause we're so not racist anymore, since we can elect a black president." It's a smugness. We're not happy that a black man is president. We're happy that we put a black man in the presidency. The sad thing is, I'm not convinced that we didn't put him there just so we could feel good about ourselves.

In other words, how many people voted for him without regard to his policies, but because he was black, in order that they could feel good about themselves for being in a nation that could elect a black president?

From that basis, it is my opinion that the reason his approval rating has dropped drastically now is because the majority of people who "approved" of him before only did so because he was black. And now that they're seeing the fruits of his stances on issues they're suddenly not so happy with the "superstar" they elected.

That's too simple Sarn - there were dozens of valid reasons that can be as simple as "he's the socialist" to "he's not that old geezer" or "I want a change from W".

I expect there will be a small, but very real group of people who did just do it for racial reasons, either to make themselves feel better, or because they were black themselves but it's unfair to tarnish every vote with that brush.

not if you're on a boat. one brush fits all. poop deck.

isn't that kind of a racist perception? everyone else is too racist because of what? because they are not black? or am i completely taking this the wrong way?

but yeah back to Obamas speech... i thought it was absolutely fantastic! i really do hope that his message got through to at least some kids.



favorite part!

I'm not sure what to call it. Self-fulfilling prophecy? It seems like the perception that other people were racist has had more to due with the lack of a black president than racism itself. It's an example of Americans holding their countrymen in low regard.

No, it was actually quite a big people. A lot of them being black and latinos. People in Mexico were saying that it would be racist to not vote for him. The media down here potrayed him as some sort of a saviour for the world, while McCain got little and negative coverage, always comparing him to Bush and Nixon, a comparison that I found just insane.

as opposed to a tiny people?

Didn't the fact that lot of Black and Latino people statistically will be poorer (don't wince; it's a sad but true fact) and hence benefit from a socialist Presidency never occurr to you?

Yes there are LOTS of well off Black and Latino people, and THEY might have voted for Obama because he was black, but the poorer MAJORITY of Black Americans will vote for him because he's Black AND because of welfare reform promises.

Obama's welfare reform promises are the exact opposite of reform. He wants to undo everything Clinton did and just give out more money to more people.

Fair enough, but that further reinforces my point. Poor people, who are more likely to be black, are going to vote for free money regardless of the race of the candidate. The fact that Obama is black probably helps but it is by no means the only reason black people voted for him.

Yeah don't you remember the video of that crazy stupid woman? "I don't gotta worry about payin for mah house, my cah"

Haha wow not much has changed round here. Mind you I'd be disappointed if debates like this stopped happening, even if they usually go round in circles a bit.

WOah. Hi Jeff!

This assumption is saying that blacks and latinos make up for the united states poverty, i'm sure theres a lot of poor white people in America.

I don't see how anyone could be benefited from a socialist president (other than his closest friends). Because, I mean, lets face it. All his ideas have done is: increase the national debt, lower his approval ratings, now comedians and cartoonists are starting to pick on him, and pissed off half of a America (a still growing number)

If Obama had really wanted to help America, he would have not taxed the rich. They need their money to invest in us. Now they will use it with more delay in order to compensate.

Cutting taxes is the only way to lower prices these days. This would benefit everyone in general, and people would buy more and more of products that are now cheaper because of the tax cut.

There are, but that's not what we were talking about. My point is that blacks/latinos are more LIKELY to be poor, which is true.




Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Socialist policies typically involve heavier taxes on the rich, and passing that money onto the poor. That's a VERY simplistic explanation, but it seems like you need one.




See above, numb nuts.




Irrelevant AND retarded! Give that man a biscuit!

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7919
Sort of back towards the original topic, but it's nice to see a response from a completely sane person.

You can go back to your usual now, the Gold-isms amuse me

yeah, that person is apparently incredibly far left leaning and also a little off her rocker...this becomes evident in the last paragraph and ensuing comments left by this person.



so she is blaming columbine and her stepsons PTSD on Regan's speech to students... yeah she is totally completely sane....

I think everyone needs to cool it with this completely ridiculous "us-vs-them" mentality. This is supposed to be a society of individuals, not groups. Like that article, where she says "you had your chance" like everyone who doesn't agree with her all agree with each other and are all out to destroy everyone in her group (and by extension, her personally).

Look, the reason there was concern over Obama's speech is because he has a fairly solid reputation for campaigning at every opportunity. And when a guy like that wants to talk directly to your kids and bypass you, ESPECIALLY when you completely disagree with him about most things, you get concerned. Obviously he doesn't always do that, and obviously that was not his intention in this case. But can you really blame people for being concerned?

I can blame people for being concerned. People should be concerned about food hygiene, about keeping their children from becoming obese, people should be concerned about being nice to one another.

People should not be concerned that a US President would stoop so low as to impart their politics on children. As much as I have to say I think W was an awful President and I'm incredibly left leaning I would not be concerned about him speaking to my (currently unborn) child. Even if my unborn child was indeed born, impressionable and listening to him at the same time I would remain unflapped.

The problem is that folk don't have any trust for people, politicians, and specifically people different from themselves and ESPECIALLY politicians who are different from themselves.

/ramble

Be careful, Martyn! Obama is going to fire your unborn baby out of a cannon at your grandmother in his abortodeath panel firing squads.

I find it hard to believe how someone could be concerned about a national address by the President...and still have their kids in public school. If you're that paranoid, wouldn't you be homeschooling or sending kids to some private school somewhere?

OH CHRIST! OH GOD NO!

/Wickerman

/lollerskates

To reiterate what Martyn already said:

Blacks and Latinos have a disproportionate share of the lower two income quintiles compared to their overall percentage of the population. Martyn never made the assumption that America's poor is comprised entirely of black people and latinos. This is the second time I've noticed in this thread that you simply did not read the specific post you were responding to. If you aren't even going to read what people have written, what the **** are you doing on an internet forum? Save us all a lot of time and invest in a notebook.

Being the closest friends of a president generally implies you are already wealthy or privileged in some fashion.

The basic mechanism of socialism is a redistribution of goods and services in such a way that all people are subject to equal costs (economics, not dollars) regardless of any particulars of status or need. This redistribution is the literal antithesis of a scheme that would benefit those who are already wealthy.

Someone who doesn't know the difference between a Latin American tinpot Stalinist dictatorship and socialism shouldn't be talking about this.

Is that all his ideas have done? Write a paper on the subject. You will be king of the economists, just as you are king of sociologists.

All presidents in the record have finished with lower popular support than they had immediately after being elected.

Hmm, yes, in the context of this intelligent debate on economics one could suggest that the cost of opportunity for political cartoonists and comedians to not make fun of the president would be a loss of their jobs.

Are you saying half of America is a still growing number, or that half is a still growing number? Because one makes logical sense while the other doesn't, you see.

$275 bn out of $787 bn in ARRA (Obama's "stimulus package") consisted of tax cuts and credits.

Obama has made absolutely no new taxes. He's talked about doing it in FY11, and that's it. Whether it's through ignorance or malice, you're a liar (but we've all known that for a while.)

I'll do you a favor by ignoring the romantic notion that wealthy individuals maintain adequate liquidity and the motivation to affect major economic change. I'll also avoid the statistics that show the most wealthy have a disproportionately tiny amount of the tax burden, since I know from above you have a really hard time understanding statistics and demographics.

There is absolutely zero proof the wealthy are able or are willing to invest their money in a way that has a positive impact on the economy. If those investment decisions are at all rational, they will have been motivated solely by self-interest; the self-interest of the wealthy in absolutely no way results in a healthy economy. (Quite the contrary, given the recent unscrupulous acts of major financial institutions.)

Well-designed and implemented economic policy can have a much bigger impact than you realize.

Broken English.

Giving everybody more money causes inflation, which is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to talk about. I'd explain in more detail but it would probably benefit you more to finish high school and take an introduction to microeconomics course or something, because this is some pretty retarded garbage you're spewing here.

I love a nice Jon`C megapost.

Probably, but I'm sure a lot of people were not so concerned as to pull their kids out of school immediately upon Obama's election, but were still somewhat concerned. I mean, as for the people who were outraged, sure, that's pretty ridiculous. The people threatening to keep their kids home that day...yeah, pretty ridiculous. But personally, I just wouldn't have been surprised at all if he had thrown in a little politics, even if only unintentionally. Any president really, but him ever so slightly more due to his history. I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think he's going to throw hypnotoad up on the screen at any point.

Which is exactly why I believe in the welfare state.

Most of my friends from home who have graduated and got good jobs are quite economically right wing: "I've earned this money by working hard, why should I give more away?" but I'm more of the opinion "I'm ****ing lucky to have had the breaks to be able to go to university, graduate, get a good job and make a comfortable living. I will gladly pay slightly higher taxes to ensure that people less fortunate than me have a better chance of being able to do what I did than perhaps their parents did".

I realise that a ****load of people on benefits are taking the piss, and that my money is squandered on them, but I firmly believe that a slice of my money is better spent on the PURE CHANCE of helping those less fortunate than me than on me buying yet more wine or another XBox game.

Wow... Martyn pretty much summed up what I've always felt about government programs but have never been able to put into words.