What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 7 - now what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

walrus said:
Nobel_prize.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL! :D
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Old Pio said:
The correct response to this white house or any white house when conferring "legitimacy" on a major media outlet is: It's NOYFB!

The real effort here is to "encourage" other media entities into ignoring future stories developed by Fox that embarrass the administration. Most media outlets (including the NYT) admitted that they were way slow in getting on to the Van Jones and ACORN stories. Whether BNPPWO wants to admit it or not, these were legitimate stories, especially ACORN, with whom his campaign did nearly a million dollars in business last year for a "get out the vote effort." Given what we now know about ACORN, who thinks the group was scrupulous about making sure only qualified, registered voters got to the polls?
Click to expand...

none of this would matter if Obama was doing a good job with things. The problem is this administration has to hide where it wants to go ideologically. If this were just an administration which was seeking noble liberal Americanism they wouldn't need to do this. These guys want to re-order and re-cast society into a society which is "better" and "more fair" and to do that you have to denigrate the message and the messengers who stand in the way of that re-ordering.

Make no mistakes, there's a reason why people feel he's a revolutionary president... he's the one that they think can bring the great social state upon the US.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Patman said:
Make no mistakes, there's a reason why people feel he's a revolutionary president... he's the one that they think can bring the great social state upon the US.
Click to expand...

Dude, they think he's a revolutionary leader because he's a black man.

There. Someone had to say it.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

What percentage of people actually give a crap about Obama's race? Maybe 10% of each side -- a big portion of the black community among his supporters, and 10% of the other side who are obsessed with it in a creepy way.

Much of this desperation -- race, birthers, "The One," "BNPPHO" -- just speaks to the paucity of real criticism on substantive grounds. It's all fears of a dark, secret agenda -- nothing real.

Here, for example, is something real to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Kepler said:
What percentage of people actually give a crap about Obama's race? Maybe 10% of each side -- a big portion of the black community among his supporters, and 10% of the other side who are obsessed with it in a creepy way.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I don't believe that to be the case. I've heard President Obama refer to himself "as a black man in America" a few different times, not as a man of mixed race. If he really wanted to quell the use of the race card by some of the fringe, it would do well to not dismiss his mother's ethnicity when making public addresses.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Kepler said:
What percentage of people actually give a crap about Obama's race? Maybe 10% of each side
Click to expand...

Would you agree that the percentages are that low, at least in part because of Obama's obsessive desire to appear moderate (anti-Fox crusade notwithstanding)? It's a point I've heard often. And I have to say, I'm not sure that there isn't at least something to it.

As for revolutionaries . . . the fact that there were Soviets who who were paranoid about Jimmy Carter, who thought his entire shtick was a ruse, goes to show the extent to which people can project their worst fears onto their political adversaries.

$.02
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

St. Clown said:
Sadly, I don't believe that to be the case. I've heard President Obama refer to himself "as a black man in America" a few different times, not as a man of mixed race. If he really wanted to quell the use of the race card by some of the fringe, it would do well to not dismiss his mother's ethnicity when making public addresses.
Click to expand...

Please. In his big speech on race during the campaign, he specifically mentioned his white ancestry.

As for why he's considered black, that's because race is a social construction. If he were transported back into the Jim Crow south, I don't think the powers of the day would buy his mother's ancestry as a reason to let him ride at the front of the bus.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
Please. In his big speech on race during the campaign, he specifically mentioned his white ancestry.

As for why he's considered black, that's because race is a social construction. If he were transported back into the Jim Crow south, I don't think the powers of the day would buy his mother's ancestry as a reason to let him ride at the front of the bus.
Click to expand...
During the campaign, while trying to get elected, he did make reference to his mother. During his time as POTUS, though, I've only heard him identify himself as a black man.

Social constructs be dammed. This man was supposed to defy them, and now he gets a pass by playing into them? Given that he grew up in Hawaii with its vast racial panoply, and also overseas, Jim Crow South doesn't apply to what would form his racial identity. In Hawaii, there has been a long mixing of the races. Overseas he would have just been seen as an American.

He has a true chance to help bridge some of the remaining divide in how races deal with each other socially yet he calls himself a black man during his speeches of the past 9 months.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

St. Clown said:
During the campaign, while trying to get elected, he did make reference to his mother. During his time as POTUS, though, I've only heard him identify himself as a black man.

Social constructs be dammed. This man was supposed to defy them, and now he gets a pass by playing into them? Given that he grew up in Hawaii with its vast racial panoply, and also overseas, Jim Crow South doesn't apply to what would form his racial identity. In Hawaii, there has been a long mixing of the races. Overseas he would have just been seen as an American.

He has a true chance to help bridge some of the remaining divide in how races deal with each other socially yet he calls himself a black man during his speeches of the past 9 months.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me, but I sure don't recall race being a prominent factor in any of his spoken word since the election.

But then again, maybe I've been mentally blocking out all the bull****.

The larger point is that both lenses are true (He is a black man. He is of mixed race. These are not mutually exclusive), and both provide a useful rhetorical device to get at the heart of the issue. If he's speaking to a black audience, he can connect with them on those grounds. If he's speaking to a diverse audience (as he was in that Philadelphia speech) he has another avenue to connect with the audience.

Point being, I'm failing to see the issue here. It only seems to come up when someone like Glen Beck starts throwing obviously false Molotov Cocktails about his "deep seated hatred for white people."
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
You'll have to forgive me, but I sure don't recall race being a prominent factor in any of his spoken word since the election.

But then again, maybe I've been mentally blocking out all the bull****.

The larger point is that both lenses are true (He is a black man. He is of mixed race. These are not mutually exclusive), and both provide a useful rhetorical device to get at the heart of the issue. If he's speaking to a black audience, he can connect with them on those grounds. If he's speaking to a diverse audience (as he was in that Philadelphia speech) he has another avenue to connect with the audience.

Point being, I'm failing to see the issue here. It only seems to come up when someone like Glen Beck starts throwing obviously false Molotov Cocktails about his "deep seated hatred for white people."
Click to expand...
I would argue that using race to play to the audience may be politically expedient, it's not constructive in the long-run.

In most of his speeches, he has not mentioned race. When he has, though, it has been to use the phrase, "as a black man in America..."
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

When the average person sees him what do you think they see? Do you think they say "man that mixed race guy sure gives good speeches" or do they say "man that black guy sure gives good speeches"? More likely they see neither but I would bet the vast majority would say black over mixed race.

Whats the difference anyways...if he identifies as a black man who are you to tell him he can't? He is an American he can describe himself however he wants.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Time to tweak a few tails... :)

From Columnist Brett Prelutsky

Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and Communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It's a wonder that our entire generation didn't grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung. The second disease, Communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late 40s and early 50s, we had A-bomb drills in public schools. We grammar school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there's nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm. On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It's taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply?
Click to expand...

Here's another courtest of Hoover Institute Historian Victor Davis Hanson

President Obama keeps roaring out deadlines like a lion -- only later to meow like a little kitty...
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

joecct said:
Time to tweak a few tails... :)

From Columnist Brett Prelutsky
Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and Communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It's a wonder that our entire generation didn't grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung. The second disease, Communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late 40s and early 50s, we had A-bomb drills in public schools. We grammar school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there's nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm. On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It's taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Um, what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top