Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The ethnicity of Obama is significant because of the recent history of the country he is now president-elect of, don't you think? It actually is, but IMO he's polarised into what people want (and he plays to that), rather than what he is (or should be). I actually think he's doing more to sustain racism (perhaps not in the "traditionally" Western perceived way) than he is to destroy it. Just wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 (edited) Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethnicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results Edited November 5, 2008 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I can sense a Paxman / Howard situation developing here. It's almost as much fun. Dont you try and emulate his behaviour by attempting to appear an expert on all things to all people? If you mean Obama, nope I'd just agree with everyone and then do whatever suited me best. If you mean manc-foplite, then it's still no I'd just whip myself into a frenzy before slinking away for a few months. Well two of my nephews are of mixed race, but it's more likely they'll get their heads kicked in for being 'black' than for being 'white'. Perhaps they could pose that same question to any would-be racist attacker though and get back to you with some empirical data. That's a nice attempted to divert the issue to something else, but nothing to do with the point. How you think of your nephews would be at least something to do with the point, but even so not really. Lets get back to the point; what do you define as "black" or "white" and what do you want Obama to be? No it's not, with respect. It's about approaching the question from a position of pure practicality as opposed to meaningless philosophising. If you think that the African Americans of today looked the same way they did when they stepped off slave ships three hundred years ago then it shows what you know tbh. There's commonly some historical percentage of white/European in the make up of African Americans, but it doesnt mean that they regard themselves as white or that white Americans regard them as white either though, so why you're obsessed with percentage amounts is beyond me. Alex has already explained this to you though. You just keep on underlining my point for me, without ever seeming to realise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethnicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results The revelator can only work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I can sense a Paxman / Howard situation developing here. It's almost as much fun. Dont you try and emulate his behaviour by attempting to appear an expert on all things to all people? If you mean Obama, nope I'd just agree with everyone and then do whatever suited me best. If you mean manc-foplite, then it's still no I'd just whip myself into a frenzy before slinking away for a few months. Well two of my nephews are of mixed race, but it's more likely they'll get their heads kicked in for being 'black' than for being 'white'. Perhaps they could pose that same question to any would-be racist attacker though and get back to you with some empirical data. That's a nice attempted to divert the issue to something else, but nothing to do with the point. How you think of your nephews would be at least something to do with the point, but even so not really. Lets get back to the point; what do you define as "black" or "white" and what do you want Obama to be? No it's not, with respect. It's about approaching the question from a position of pure practicality as opposed to meaningless philosophising. If you think that the African Americans of today looked the same way they did when they stepped off slave ships three hundred years ago then it shows what you know tbh. There's commonly some historical percentage of white/European in the make up of African Americans, but it doesnt mean that they regard themselves as white or that white Americans regard them as white either though, so why you're obsessed with percentage amounts is beyond me. Alex has already explained this to you though. You just keep on underlining my point for me, without ever seeming to realise it. I'll leave the underlining to you. Along with the italics, bold and "quotation marks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I can sense a Paxman / Howard situation developing here. It's almost as much fun. Dont you try and emulate his behaviour by attempting to appear an expert on all things to all people? If you mean Obama, nope I'd just agree with everyone and then do whatever suited me best. If you mean manc-foplite, then it's still no I'd just whip myself into a frenzy before slinking away for a few months. Well two of my nephews are of mixed race, but it's more likely they'll get their heads kicked in for being 'black' than for being 'white'. Perhaps they could pose that same question to any would-be racist attacker though and get back to you with some empirical data. That's a nice attempted to divert the issue to something else, but nothing to do with the point. How you think of your nephews would be at least something to do with the point, but even so not really. Lets get back to the point; what do you define as "black" or "white" and what do you want Obama to be? No it's not, with respect. It's about approaching the question from a position of pure practicality as opposed to meaningless philosophising. If you think that the African Americans of today looked the same way they did when they stepped off slave ships three hundred years ago then it shows what you know tbh. There's commonly some historical percentage of white/European in the make up of African Americans, but it doesnt mean that they regard themselves as white or that white Americans regard them as white either though, so why you're obsessed with percentage amounts is beyond me. Alex has already explained this to you though. You just keep on underlining my point for me, without ever seeming to realise it. I'll leave the underlining to you. Along with the italics, bold and "quotation marks" Ok that's as close as an admission of defeat as you ever give, by all means scuttle off now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 706 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 re: Obama being a Muslim. I think it actually colored his campaign a lot more than he let on. It may look like he just denied it once, went to church publicly once, and moved on, but that's not the case. If you look at some of his stances that affect the Muslim world, you get the following: - He pisses off just about everyone by continuing the tradition of blind Israel support, but of course that can't be held against him because nobody can be elected who doesn't support Israel. - He vows to send more troops to Afghanistan instead of cutting short a conflict that's even more hopeless than Iraq. - He already made those airstrike comments about Pakistan and continued to hint that the US would operate within Pakistan without permission from their government. Pakistan already harbors massive numbers of anti-Western terrorists but has a government that is still nominally pro-West, although with this kind of tactic it won't be for long. - Not content with goading America's key ally in the "war on terror," he then went on to suggest they should pass a bill officially declaring an Armenian genocide. There is nothing on earth that would enrage Turkey - another important Middle Eastern ally and the one that is closest to being "Western" - more than mentioning this. I believe he took the above tactics as a way of further distancing himself from the Muslim connection. It's sad that it's come to this, but of course race is politics in the States. p.s. Parky, you sound like you think this guy is Jesus Christ and Kevin Keegan rolled into one. He's just another politician. The new boss is the same as the old boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. He's nothing to christian evangelicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop wants him blacked up like Al Jolson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. He's nothing to christian evangelicals. He was probably nothing to hard-line communists and the KKK, but then I doubt they were a major target for his campaign to start with either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop wants him blacked up like Al Jolson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop wants him blacked up like Al Jolson. Actually I'd pretty much say that's what you are doing. (but you do like to make my point for me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34473 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, I don't know whether you got it from your mam's side or your dad's, but I see you as 100% the nerdy arsehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. I have a strong sense that the politician might have won the election, but 'the man' will be the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Yes, probably (unless you are the second coming), but that makes you a consummate politician, not crusader or anything like it. A politician will sell (or use) their Granny to get the power they want, but that doesn't make it right or them anything else other than a clever and ruthless politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, I don't know whether you got it from your mam's side or your dad's, but I see you as 100% the nerdy arsehole. That's nice. I have a strong sense that the politician might have won the election, but 'the man' will be the president. We'll have to see. But I don't think anyone knows who or what the man is. In fairness he might do quite well on the world stage, but on the other hand when it becomes obvious that he won't sacrifice America's interests (and his own re-electability) for that, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Yes, probably (unless you are the second coming), but that makes you a consummate politician, not crusader or anything like it. A politician will sell (or use) their Granny to get the power they want, but that doesn't make it right or them anything else other than a clever and ruthless politician. Some politicians can have a modicum of principle. Personally I like Tony Benn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Colin Powell admits to weeping on hearing the confirmation of Obama's victory. The Economy is going to be the trickiest factor in his Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, i've never met anyone as full of shit as you Absolutely class. Unification of diverse ethicities and demographics has been the strategy from the outset. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...nalysis-results I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Yes, probably (unless you are the second coming), but that makes you a consummate politician, not crusader or anything like it. A politician will sell (or use) their Granny to get the power they want, but that doesn't make it right or them anything else other than a clever and ruthless politician. Some politicians can have a modicum of principle. Personally I like Tony Benn. So do I (even when I totally disagree with him), but he'd never become PM (or US President for 100,000 reasons). His son has taken a much more traditional view of the job though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, I don't know whether you got it from your mam's side or your dad's, but I see you as 100% the nerdy arsehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Fop, I don't know whether you got it from your mam's side or your dad's, but I see you as 100% the nerdy arsehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now