US Election 2008

[Park Life 70]

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.

Could you actually put that into plain English please?

That would be racist.

 

Obama can't destroy racism, he's not trying to either.

 

The fact that he was even able to run and has succeeded shows that race is now a small enough issue that the fight is already won. Oba has bigger fish to fry now, whatever kind of percentile you insist should be applied to his 'brother' credentials.

 

 

See my sig.

 

 

 

Wahey.

 

Another WU bites the dust.

 

 

Did you really think I couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist? Or did I just you as usual?

 

I was responding to the only "point" I could decipher in your original post, that "he's doing more to sustain racism than he is to destroy it."

 

That's why I started my reponse as i did.

 

I didn't thing you "couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist", I assumed (like everyone else) you don't have a clue what you're on about yourself so have taken to filibustering by responding to older posts rather than respond to what's been asked of you now.

 

 

Check.

 

 

 

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

[Fop 1]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

[Guest alex]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

I haven't seen the answer.

[Park Life 70]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

 

Give us the ans clearly one more time fella.

[ChezGiven 0]

I hope fop's filibustering isnt a sign of things to come.

[Fop 1]

I've explained it, I don't know what you want or think you want.

 

I'm not getting dragged into your usual language semantics no matter how hard you try , you either understand it or you don't, it's your problem not mine.

 

 

Like shite you have!

 

I admit I may not have explained it for the likes of you. But that's not in my remit.

 

 

I reckon he's just so moved by the result he is rambling.

 

 

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

 

 

It must be a fantastically complex point as it seems to have no recourse in common parlance.

Or English. And people say politics is boring.

This isn't boring.

 

So assuming for a minute that Obama has finally acheived his goal of acheiving power, using his Afro American/White/Christian /Muslim perceived appearance and backround in a totally cynical fashion. Appearing as a race warrior and pioneer to those who seek one, an Uncle Tom to those who dont want to be threatened, an intellectual crusader to those searching for a humanist hero (I guess this is your point even though you same incapable of expressing it)

 

wtf does

 

I actually think he's doing more to sustain racism (perhaps not in the "traditionally" Western perceived way) than he is to destroy it.

 

actually mean

 

You answer your own question.

 

 

Would love to see Fop try and get away with putting the question to Obama on Newsnight:

 

"How black are you?"

 

"So can you give a percentage?"

 

"Thought not!"

 

*Turns to camera wearing smug grin. Cut to producer, mortified*

 

I'd never ask him that question. In fact I don't even think there should be a question.

 

 

But yet again you make my point for me.

 

 

Woo-hoo! Cake-and-eat-it time already.

 

Full house!

 

 

 

[Guest alex]

Fop, if I ask you again, will you provide the answer you've already supposedly given? Can't say fairer than that, surely.

[ChezGiven 0]

What does this victory mean for US foreign policy? Lets not forget this is the reason why the world wanted to see Obama win.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...08-barackobama6

 

As election day approached, both presidential candidates were given a CIA briefing, sketching out the shape of the world the winner would inherit. At the end of an exhausting and sometimes terrifying list of global threats, Barack Obama took a deep breath, according to someone familiar with his session, and said: "Good grief, why do I want this job?"

 

Anyone reminded of Bill Hicks?

 

The rest of the article is worth a read.

[Fop 1]

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.

Could you actually put that into plain English please?

That would be racist.

 

Obama can't destroy racism, he's not trying to either.

 

The fact that he was even able to run and has succeeded shows that race is now a small enough issue that the fight is already won. Oba has bigger fish to fry now, whatever kind of percentile you insist should be applied to his 'brother' credentials.

 

 

See my sig.

 

 

 

Wahey.

 

Another WU bites the dust.

 

 

Did you really think I couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist? Or did I just you as usual?

 

I was responding to the only "point" I could decipher in your original post, that "he's doing more to sustain racism than he is to destroy it."

 

That's why I started my reponse as i did.

 

I didn't thing you "couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist", I assumed (like everyone else) you don't have a clue what you're on about yourself so have taken to filibustering by responding to older posts rather than respond to what's been asked of you now.

 

 

 

Do you or do you not think defining someone by their skin colour (correctly or not) is racist?

 

And do you think playing to that is inclusive or polarising?

[Fop 1]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

[Fop 1]

I hope fop's filibustering isnt a sign of things to come.

 

Sorry I got a bit carried away in all the frenzy of fun.

[Guest alex]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

Who is?

[Fop 1]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

I haven't seen the answer.

And you won't because you don't want to.

 

 

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

 

Give us the ans clearly one more time fella.

 

To which one?

[Fop 1]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

Who is?

 

Many of the people here, and many who voted for him (and did not).

 

The better question would be; who is not?

[Fop 1]

What does this victory mean for US foreign policy? Lets not forget this is the reason why the world wanted to see Obama win.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...08-barackobama6

 

As election day approached, both presidential candidates were given a CIA briefing, sketching out the shape of the world the winner would inherit. At the end of an exhausting and sometimes terrifying list of global threats, Barack Obama took a deep breath, according to someone familiar with his session, and said: "Good grief, why do I want this job?"

 

Anyone reminded of Bill Hicks?

 

The rest of the article is worth a read.

 

Be interesting to see if he can cozy up to Syria and indeed how Iran will react to that.

[Park Life 70]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

 

The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse.

[Guest alex]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

I haven't seen the answer.

And you won't because you don't want to.

 

I do want to. That's why I categorically asked what your post meant. You don't want to answer it though, seemingly. About four people asked you and you did the online equivalent or running around with your hands in your ear shouting la, la, la.

Wtf does:

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.

actually mean then. You can just cut and paste your previous answer, obviously

[Guest alex]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

Who is?

 

Many of the people here, and many who voted for him (and did not).

 

The better question would be; who is not?

I accept many people may have said that. Do you mean people on here in this thread as well though? I haven't seen evidence of that if that is what you also meant.

Edited November 5, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

 

The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse.

 

Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)?

[tinofbeans 86]

I don't care what colour he is.

 

I do care what he does to the USA in the near future. I beleive he will be a success. compared to the previous person in charge, he could do a fop (i.e. not listen and spout bollocks) and still do better!

[Fop 1]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

I haven't seen the answer.

And you won't because you don't want to.

 

I do want to. That's why I categorically asked what your post meant. You don't want to answer it though, seemingly. About four people asked you and you did the online equivalent or running around with your hands in your ear shouting la, la, la.

Wtf does:

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.

actually mean then. You can just cut and paste your previous answer, obviously

 

I mean exactly what I said, he's "inclusively polarised" if you will. It's like the difference between multi-cultural and multi-mono-cultural, which many might take to be the same thing, but of course are vastly different things with massively different outcomes.

 

And I think that stance does more to propagate racism than it does to sweep it away, not in a traditional KKK way, but it's still racism even if it's not the same old racism or people doing it.

[Park Life 70]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

 

The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse.

 

Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)?

 

 

Not being a black man in America it would be impossible for me to define 'that moment'. That moment before my blackness is colonised. Being black is wholly about the moment your 'otherness' is colonised. These are the basics of race identity. qv the Bangladeshi community in East London, qv the Arab community in Sweden.

 

I think behind all this bluster you have a valid point if it is only about erasure, I'm guessing your tallking about that.

Edited November 5, 2008 by 13 Kane

[Fop 1]

I don't care what colour he is.

Exactly (if true).

 

I do care what he does to the USA in the near future. I beleive he will be a success. compared to the previous person in charge, he could do a fop (i.e. not listen and spout bollocks) and still do better!

Why do you believe though?

[Guest alex]

I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

 

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black.

 

 

Others are; which is my point.

 

The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse.

 

Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)?

It's a difficult one Fop I concede. But I suspect he feels more black than white in many ways because he would have more in common with other black/mixed race people in terms of common prejudices faced, common historical injustices faced by family members and so on. Obviously that's pure guesswork coming from a white person from the NE of England but if you turn back the clock to the time before the civil rights movement he'd have been considered a 'negro' or whatever then and it's people who are of mixed race like him who are still at the wrong end of society's injustices in the United States. I don't think he should be defined purely by his colour but it's naive to say it shouldn't be an issue when it is bound to be. That's because we all have our little prejudices I suppose, some far more than others. And countries as a whole have them which is why you've never had anyone 'black' as president before. And he is seen as black, rightly or wrongly (given his mixed race background).

[Guest alex]

You have to laugh at someone having a pop at politicians for the way they behave then flatly refusing to answer a straight question. What an italicised, bolded hypocrite.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer.

I haven't seen the answer.

And you won't because you don't want to.

 

I do want to. That's why I categorically asked what your post meant. You don't want to answer it though, seemingly. About four people asked you and you did the online equivalent or running around with your hands in your ear shouting la, la, la.

Wtf does:

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.

actually mean then. You can just cut and paste your previous answer, obviously

 

I mean exactly what I said, he's "inclusively polarised" if you will. It's like the difference between multi-cultural and multi-mono-cultural, which many might take to be the same thing, but of course are vastly different things with massively different outcomes.

 

And I think that stance does more to propagate racism than it does to sweep it away, not in a traditional KKK way, but it's still racism even if it's not the same old racism or people doing it.

You've just repeated what you said before though in very slightly different terms