|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
posted November 15, 2008 05:58 AM |
|
|
You think so? Richardson's served as governor of New Mexico, certainly giving him some foreign affairs chops, but do they measure up to 1st ladyship? I'm being serious here, not snarky. I don't really know enough abou Richardson's credentials to be very good on knowing his 'goods'.
Another name floated, by the way, has been Kerry. A choice I'd shy desperately away from. Whatever his accomplishments, Kerry was too thoroughly destroyed during the 2004 election to make him a viable long term selection for such a high post.
By high post, I mean Secretary of State is, in my opinion right up there at the top of the list as 'go to' folks for the President. Obviously VP is up there, these days NSA is a high profile position, but I still don't think the NSA is going to eclipse the Secretary of State.
Clinton, I think, would be a good choice because of her background in the Whitehouse for one. First ladies do have duties in an administration as possibly the highest unnamed, unpayed position in the country. She had that 'job' for 8 years working as a supplament to her husband. Granted, Bill Clinton's foreign relations weren't the greatest, or most focused, however she knows a lot of the players and she knows a lot of the issues.
Aside from that, she was almost selected for the top spot this last spring anyway. She's put out a lot of information (spin?) about her own credentials this year. Not that it's good just because your campaign said it....
Finally, she is a serving senetor.... For whatever that's worth.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 15, 2008 06:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@JOKER:
Quote:
He's obviously NEITHER white NOR black
false
In case that is supposed to mean he's both, you seem to stand pretty alone with your opinion - I never heard someone mention that Obama would be WHITE as well.
If I'm 1/64th asian and 63/64th white, does that make me neither?
Where does it end?
Everyone is a mixed race of some sort, depending on how you look at it.
Any given black person would have a heritage that is not strictly black and if you take it that far back you can argue that we all have a common ancestor anyway.
So in my opinion your way of looking at it is wrong.
He is half black and half white, I dno if there's a word for it like eurasian but because he's skin is black he can be called black, because that is the whole point of race.
Unlike nationality, which can be readily defined, race is based on appearance and predominantly skin colour.
I find nothing wrong in saying Obama is black, it's a fact. He is.
Quote:
How any countries are ruthless captitalistic like the USA today?
And stop using America, becasue its only the USA whom are betwhen Mexico and Canada in America. USA IS NOT AMERICA ITSELF!
Dude, it's the United States of America. If I refer to Congo do you know what I'm talking about or do I need to call it the Democratic Republic of Congo or just DRC? United Arab Emirates? People's Republic of China?
If we're talking about America I think it's pretty clear we don't mean Mexico or Canada 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2008 10:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@JOKER:
Quote:
He's obviously NEITHER white NOR black
false
In case that is supposed to mean he's both, you seem to stand pretty alone with your opinion - I never heard someone mention that Obama would be WHITE as well.
He is half black and half white, I dno if there's a word for it like eurasian but because he's skin is black he can be called black, because that is the whole point of race.
Unlike nationality, which can be readily defined, race is based on appearance and predominantly skin colour.
I find nothing wrong in saying Obama is black, it's a fact. He is.
Ah, right. Good thing then, that 40 years ago people were right to call boys with long hairs girls - after all they looked like them, so there was nothing wrong calling them so - because it was a fact, wasn't it? There were. Come to think of it, it must be right to call someone a criminal because he looks so, a junkie, a maniac or simply a moron. After all, it's all about appearances, right?
Not only that, you are COMPLETELY missing the point as well. With 50/50 there is absolutely no reason to take one over the other. He may look blacker than white, but that's in the nature of the imvolved colors and apart from that a completely arbitrary decision: If you mix 50% water and blood it will still look like blood, even though it's only 50%. If you mix milk and coffee in equal parts, who is to say whether the milk has paled the coffee to light brown or the coffee has blackend the milk?
By the way, the term is MULATTO or, coloquially, MUTT, both of which have a racist connotation, but is technically correct nonetheless.
Now, for your ramblings about what race is and how valid it is, my advice is to inform yourself. For starters, here's the introduction of the wiki article:
Quote:
The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of categorizing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity. Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 02:13 AM |
|
|
No, because those things are not based on appearance, as race is.
You're using sophistry now and you know it.
Many of them are personality traits, or actions committed or whatever, however when it comes down to it there is no real difference between a black, white, asian etc person except for their appearance, which is where race is derived from.
A person could be african, american, british, australian, indonesian, russian, be descended from scotland or have one black great grand father, but if they have black skin, they are black.
That's what it means.
It's nothing racist, the fact remains that the black phenotype is dominant over white, so if you have black skin, you are not white. It's not like a country club you need to join like Michael Jackson or whatever.
It's not derogatory or prejudicial, it's a description of a characteristic. That's what race is.
I think that you making such a big deal out of it blows it way out of proportion and attracts negativity that wasn't already there.
Oh, and, play fair Joker.
No one likes sarcasm.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 08:32 AM |
|
|
|
Fact is Obama identifies with black race. He went to black intentity church for pat 20 years. He talk about black community. He considers himself black and black community considers him black. Pretty much everybody but Jolly Joker call him black. America have first black president on January 20, 2009.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because those things are not based on appearance, as race is.
You're using sophistry now and you know it.
.
.
.
It's not derogatory or prejudicial, it's a description of a characteristic. That's what race is.
I think that you making such a big deal out of it blows it way out of proportion and attracts negativity that wasn't already there.
What I know is that you are insisting on being ignorant about the problems of the race idea.
Sophistry? What's the difference between being black and having a healthy sun-tan, if it's "based on appearance"?
Quote:
Oh, and, play fair Joker.
No one likes sarcasm.
Wrong. 
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:40 AM |
|
|
Could we finally leave the "color" discussion and get back to serious issues?
Will Hillary take the job he offered her?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:51 AM |
|
|
You can't insist on being ignorant.
And are you saying you can't tell the difference between a tan and a black person? 
If a person doesn't have black skin, they're not black.
If they do, they are black. A tan is not permanent black skin.
You're confusing race with genetic background or something.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 11:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't insist on being ignorant.
And are you saying you can't tell the difference between a tan and a black person?
You show that it's possible.
And why bother? FACT is that Obama is a mulatto. If it doesn't matter what he IS (a mulatto), but only how he LOOKS like (black; well not black, really, tan, actually), why should it count that someone IS actually white, when he LOOKS like a mulatto, therefore LOOKS black?
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 01:29 PM |
|
|
Go look up the "one drop rule". If not the one I posted, find it on the internet. I'm tired of the race discussion by a page or two.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Could we finally leave the "color" discussion and get back to serious issues?
Will Hillary take the job he offered her?
Ok, I am not up to date lately. What was she offered?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 01:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, I am not up to date lately. What was she offered?
Position as Secretary of State. Thoughts? 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 01:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And why bother? FACT is that Obama is a mulatto. If it doesn't matter what he IS (a mulatto), but only how he LOOKS like (black; well not black, really, tan, actually), why should it count that someone IS actually white, when he LOOKS like a mulatto, therefore LOOKS black?
To give a final statement to your "mulatto" problem, I recommend to read "Walter Plecker" and his (One-Drop-Theory.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 04:37 PM |
|
|
Well, I know about that, but the One-Drop-Rule is a RACIST "rule". It may explain why it is something seen the way it is, but that doesn't make it less racist which is what I said.
Oh, and by the way:
Quote:
When the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), it declared Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the one-drop rule unconstitutional.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
The one-drop rule is unconstitutional for use in any government-related activities. As a cultural thing, though, it's still there.
And it makes some sense. Since race is a social construct, not really a biological one, those whom society considers to be black are considered to be black. And it does it by how someone looks. Obama looks black - then he is black. If I, the child of white parents, would somehow look black, then society would consider me black, even though I have no African blood in me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The one-drop rule is unconstitutional for use in any government-related activities. As a cultural thing, though, it's still there.
Translation: It's considered racist, but in everyday life racism is still rabid.
Quote:
And it makes some sense. Since race is a social construct, not really a biological one, those whom society considers to be black are considered to be black. And it does it by how someone looks. Obama looks black - then he is black. If I, the child of white parents, would somehow look black, then society would consider me black, even though I have no African blood in me.
If it's right for black it must be right for every other "race" as well: Those whom society considers to be a Jew is considered to be a Jew; if the child of whatever parents would somehow loök Jewish then society would consider it a Jew, right? If a child would somehow look girlish it would be considered a girl whether it was a boy or not. Is that so?
I don't think so. I think, that every parents would be outraged if their children were called something "because they look like it", other than black. With black they are just used to it, but it's still racism.
I wonder what people would think about the one-drop-rule being in effect for Jews in Germany...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Translation: It's considered racist, but in everyday life racism is still rabid.
No. Translation: The government has no right to determine an individual's race, but society does whatever it wants.
Quote:
if the child of whatever parents would somehow loök Jewish then society would consider it a Jew
What does "look Jewish" mean? There is an extremely great variety among Jews. Often, one can't tell whether a person is a Jew or not simply by looking at them. But one can usually easily tell if one is black or not.
Quote:
If a child would somehow look girlish it would be considered a girl whether it was a boy or not.
No, this is different, because gender is a biological feature, not a social construct.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Translation: It's considered racist, but in everyday life racism is still rabid.
No. Translation: The government has no right to determine an individual's race, but society does whatever it wants.
Quote:
if the child of whatever parents would somehow loök Jewish then society would consider it a Jew
What does "look Jewish" mean? There is an extremely great variety among Jews. Often, one can't tell whether a person is a Jew or not simply by looking at them. But one can usually easily tell if one is black or not.
Quote:
If a child would somehow look girlish it would be considered a girl whether it was a boy or not.
No, this is different, because gender is a biological feature, not a social construct.
So when I come up with Jews you argue that you can tell whether someone IS black or not, but when I come up with girl/boy, gender suddenly is a biological feature, and NOT a social construct.
So what is it now? If it's a social construct I can define how a Jew looks like the same way I can define how a black look like: everyone having a drop of colored blood in them is considered black (translation: everyone who is not fully white is "black").
So I say, everyone having other than blond or red hair, a crooked nose, thin lips, dark eyes and is smallish (plus some more) is a Jew. Which is socially important becausr in times past those were the only ones allowed to deal with money lending business and so on...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:07 PM |
|
|
Of course you can tell when someone is a girl or boy just by one's physical features. You have to look beyond having long hair, though. But gender is a biological feature, although gender roles are partially a social construct.
And yes, if you could define a Jew that way, and society would use that definition, then "Jew" would be on its way of becoming a social construct.
But it shouldn't be used for any discriminatory purposes, of course.
But being able to identify race can be useful.
Cop: What did the guy who attack you look like?
Victim (without race): He was big, had dark skin and dark curly hair, and walked with a limp.
Victim (with race): He was a big black guy with curly hair and walked with a limp.
Which description is more useful? (Yes, I realize I'm straying from PC areas.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:11 PM |
|
|
I'm getting sick of all the "political correctness" I mean what's wrong in saying "black" or whatever? Provided you don't do it discriminatory of course, I agree with mvass.
But what does "discriminatory" mean? Do we discriminate women when we say they don't have a ****? (serious question)... it's how it is. If someone is black, it doesn't mean we discriminate them if we say "hey dude, you absorb more light energy" right?
(no shock )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
