An aquaintence of mine made a comment this morning, "If Obama runs for president, I'm going to vote for him just because he is black."
Now, mind you, this is a white man saying this, and he went on to reason that "having a black president will help curb racism in this country."
Though I may tend to agree with him somewhat, I couldn't help but think that voting this way was somewhat racist itself. (Surely, not voting for him because he is black would be). Am I right? ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 01:17 PM DorianGreyed I think you have to look at the larger picture; not every situation is a simple case of heads or tails. We all would agree that cutting an arm off is, generally speaking, not conducive to maintaining good health, but if the arm were gangrenous, amputation then been seen as a way to maintain good health.
I am not doubting that you are accurately portraying what your friend said, but do you think he would vote for Louis Farrakhan just because he is black? Al Sharpton? I suspect that there is more to his vote for Obama than "just because he is black." ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 01:53 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I am not doubting that you are accurately portraying what your friend said, but do you think he would vote for Louis Farrakhan just because he is black? Al Sharpton? I suspect that there is more to his vote for Obama than "just because he is black."
Are Farrakhan and Sharpton in the running for 2008? Could they possibly even be seriously considered? Um, NO. You may 'suspect' there's more to his vote, but you'd be wrong. ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 02:31 PM DorianGreyed Did you forget to respond to the first part of my post? ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 03:21 PM Kendor I have consulted a higher intelligence on that part, DG.
He states that your analogy is a reasonable one. However, using the same analogy on a guy not voting for a canidate because of skin color could be valid as well.
A possible reasoning could be "If we have a black president then African Americans will become even more arrogant about their color and background than they are now, and racism will never go away!"
(Arrogance being the gangrene) ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 03:39 PM DorianGreyed I think the gangrene is racism. ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 05:17 PM sid1114 Wait a minute. Are we talking left arm, or right? ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 05:21 PM DorianGreyed Oh, it's the Right one, for sure. ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 05:44 PM hippolips Hi Gang:
Voting for someone because he is Black or White
or Hispanic or Jewish or Catholic or Baptist or
,Gay or Straight or Fat or Thin or Short or
Tall or Male or Female,
is just plain stupid if that's your only reason for voting for him or her.
hippolips
P.S. Or just because they would be the first whatever to become President. ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 06:46 PM frankvan Forgive me, Hippo, but I think the whole argument is just plain stupid. Human people of any particulat persuasion don't vote for anyone because of any one qualification. People vote for someone because he is white, black, tall, handsome, just doesn't happen. Kendor's example of someone voting against a black candidate because it would make blacks "even more arrogant than they already are!" illustrates that: he believes that blacks are 'too arrogant to suit him,God knows they don't need to be encouraged'. Doesn't that prove that his reasoning is due to prejudice which is far more involved and extensive than the mere fact of race. I think you'll agree that there is more to Obama than his race, there is more to Hillary than her gender, and there is more to people's stated reason than can be summarized in one attribute. ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 08:14 PM hippolips Hi Frank :
Then why do we have all these talking heads on MSNBC yakking about the first Woman President or the first Black President???
I'm all for Hillary and Obama running for President.
But I sure wouldn't vote for either of them because they were the first,but I would if they were the best,most qualified for the job.
That was my point.
Otherwise we'll end voting for the First left handed guitar player from South Dakota or some equally assinine reason.
hippolips ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 08:36 PM DorianGreyed "Then why do we have all these talking heads on MSNBC yakking about the first Woman President or the first Black President???"
They are talking about it because there is a possibility of a first time for either; that makes it news. Depending on your news source, the talking heads may be for one or both of them, or against one or both of them, or even completely neutral. Talking about the possibility is not endorsing either.
If the president took off all his clothes and ran through the White House yelling, "Locusts! Run for your lives", it would be commented on by the talking heads, but I don't think they would be in favor of locusts or running naked through the White House. (Or against either, for that matter) News is news. Hippo, the other day, you were complaining about the news coverage of Britney's butt. Now you are complaining about a discussion of the possibility of an unprecedented event in the history of the US. What should they be talking about? ************************************************************* 12-18-06, 11:12 PM newnickname How many people voted for Bush, or would vote for Clinton, at least partly because of their surnames?
Isn't that exactly as irrational a reason for giving a vote? Yet it obviously has a very significant effect. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 07:22 AM aminator2002 In a vacuum of other information, my primary bias is to vote for women over men. So when confronted with something like a County comptroller choice, let's face it most people don't know much about these candidates, I will choose to vote for the female candidate over the male.
This doesn't hold true for candidates that I take the time to learn about. For instance I will not vote for Hilary Clinton (unless Jeb Bush is the Republican). I see her political positions as divisive and frankly I just don't trust her.
Your friend should take that primary bias that he has and learn some more about Obama. He will not be left saying he simply voted because of race and I hope that people who would vote against him due to race will make an attempt to learn about him too. I think anyone that takes the time will be happy with what they learn about him and what he represents on a much larger scale than race. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 10:06 AM Kendor I believe someone just called me stupid, and racist, in a single post.
I'm not the one voting for someone based solely on their race, gender, surname, or anything else. I vote based on which person I feel will best represent my interests. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 12:09 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: I think anyone that takes the time will be happy with what they learn about him and what he represents on a much larger scale than race.
God ami, I sure hope so. I really really hope so. (Including especially those of his race) ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 12:16 PM juanruiz
quote: I think anyone that takes the time will be happy with what they learn about him and what he represents on a much larger scale than race.
I think he has to reveal a lot more than just what his ghostwriters put into his mouth. What we do not need in the White House is another empty suit. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 12:56 PM frankvan No, Kendor, if you mean that the person accusing you of stupidity and racism was me, I had no such intention. I meant to the hypothetical person in your example who voted against anyone black because "it would result in blacks becoming even more arrogant than they already were". I think that is not simply a matter of race, but underlying bigotry triggered by something as superficial as skin color. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 01:08 PM aminator2002 I am sure Obama will convince many more once he puts his hat in. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 01:26 PM VelvetVoice
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: I think he has to reveal a lot more than just what his ghostwriters put into his mouth. What we do not need in the White House is another empty suit.
LMAO! Isn't the job of a president an 'empty suit' to begin with?
I thought he wrote this book himself. The excepts I have seen seem to be sincere. And I think he has a great personality, too. Think about this, for most of his presidency Reagan was all image. I think Obama has the right image for the office. Hillary irritates me too, Ami. ************************************************************* 12-19-06, 01:29 PM juanruiz
quote:
Originally posted by VelvetVoice:
quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz: I think he has to reveal a lot more than just what his ghostwriters put into his mouth. What we do not need in the White House is another empty suit.
LMAO! Isn't the job of a president an 'empty suit' to begin with?
I thought he wrote this book himself. The excepts I have seen seem to be sincere. And I think he has a great personality, too. Think about this, for most of his presidency Reagan was all image. I think Obama has the right image for the office. Hillary irritates me too, Ami.
yeah, like Kennedy actually wrote Profiles in Courage. They all have ghostwriters. If I were Carter, I'd fire his latest one. **************************************************************** 12-19-06, 01:43 PM hippolips Hi Gang:
Right now Obama is on his honeymoon,like Reagan ,he's delivering a great message of Hope to America.
But once Obama starts talking in specifics ,about where he stands on important issues,that's when the critics will start crawling out of the walls and picking him apart and the honeymoon will be over.
Our media are the ones who made Obama [the Rock Star]and they will be the first ones to destroy him.
quote: yeah, like Kennedy actually wrote Profiles in Courage. They all have ghostwriters. If I were Carter, I'd fire his latest one.
You obviously know something I don't. I didn't think it required much imagination to believe that either Kennedy: Bobby or Jack, were capable, and Obama seems reasonably articulate. Do you think Winston Churchhill wrote his own stuff?
And Hippo, aren't you making a snap judgement of the type you deplore when others make them? Is a snap disapproval based on short acquaintance more acceptable than premature praise? **************************************************************** 12-19-06, 07:08 PM juanruiz http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031107.html **************************************************************** 12-20-06, 07:48 AM VelvetVoice Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! **************************************************************** 12-20-06, 07:45 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: And Hippo, aren't you making a snap judgement of the type you deplore when others make them? Is a snap disapproval based on short acquaintance more acceptable than premature praise?
-----------------------------------------------
Hi Frank:
Re-read my thread...I made no snap decision about Obama one way or the other.
I said that once Obama stopped speaking in generalities, and got specific, our media would go after him.
This is what they do with all politicians.
I haven't heard enough about where Obama stands on any specific subject to form an opinion about him ,one way or the other.
Can you give me a list of specific subjects on which Obama has taken a stand???
hippolips **************************************************************** 12-21-06, 09:31 AM aminator2002 Obama Website on issues **************************************************************** 12-21-06, 10:37 AM methos Obama claims not to have used a ghostwriter on his latest book. Reviewers (e.g., Kazin of the Washington Post and Merriner of the Chicago Sun-Times) of this book who have also read his earlier book (before he was in much of a position to have had a ghostwriter) have specifically commented that they see no signs of a ghostwriter... Take it for what it's worth. **************************************************************** 12-21-06, 11:14 AM frankvan Personally, I like the looks of this Obama fellow, but admittedly not a great deal of exposure has taken place as yet. Some here predict his being shot down in flames once we get more dirt-digging pros at work. Who knows what skeletons may be in his closet. But there is a subtle difference in that some of us hope for more serendipitous revelations, while others seem to salivate at the anticipation of a denouement.
On the question of ghostwriters, I think that is largely a non-issue. Many people in public life have led interesting and eventful lives but, understandably lack the time or the writing skills to produce a book. I think the person who tells the story in a collection of post-it notes, journal entries, etc. but has actually experienced the events chronicled, is certainly entitled to claim authorship - at least as deserving as the professional who handles the minutiae. IMHO. **************************************************************** 12-21-06, 11:33 AM aminator2002 My opinion - He was President of Harvard Law Review. I've had a friend who was President of a lesser school's law review and you have to have skills. I've read passages of the book and don't see anything there that screams ghost writer. It seems well within his skill set as a successful attorney and law maker to write such a book.
Seeing his speak off the cuff to me is what shows that he is not an empty suit like what is currently in office. He has dignity and class and seems quite genuine. I'm sure America will have a chance to see this for themselves. **************************************************************** 12-21-06, 12:22 PM frankvan "But I sure wouldn't vote for either of them because they were the first,but I would if they were the best,most qualified for the job." Hippolips.
And I think that is just what every voter in the world WANTS to believe. Including the ignoramus who votes for the opposition candidate. Wouldn't you agree that we often vote for the person we are luke-warm about because the other candidate is infinitely worse? That when both candidates are equally attractive we may choose the one who seems most electable? In the recent senatorial contest in Maryland, Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume ran against one another in the primary. They genuinely liked one another and shared similar views. I could just as readily have voted for either one, but I chose Cardin because I realized he was less controversial and therefore more electable. He was!
As far as race or gender is concerned, everything else being comparatively equal, I would vote for the candidate representing a long overdue breakthrough. We need to practice what we keep preaching.IMO. **************************************************************** 12-22-06, 06:03 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: ...Including the ignoramus who votes for the opposition candidate...
Ami, you gonna take this abuse? **************************************************************** 12-22-06, 10:33 AM aminator2002 Not sure why you think I should be offended by frank's comments. I have admitted a certain level of ignorance that I believe most people would agree is perfectly reasonable. As a busy person I just don't have time to research the Sanitation director vote nor many of the judgeships.
I have never voted against someone because of their race or gender.
I certainly don't think his comment was directed at what I have said. **************************************************************** 12-22-06, 10:38 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: For instance I will not vote for Hilary Clinton (unless Jeb Bush is the Republican). I see her political positions as divisive and frankly I just don't trust her.
That would fit the 'voting for the opposition' definition, wouldn't it? **************************************************************** 12-22-06, 10:49 AM frankvan I don't think Kendor was serious, and I certainly wasn't referring to anyone in particular. I merely opined, facetiously, that we all like to think that we vote intelligently for the best qualified candidate, but the person voting for the opposing candidate must be an ignoramus. Wink **************************************************************** 12-22-06, 07:36 PM aminator2002 Yes, let it be known Kendor that I will vote for a chimpanzee over Jeb Bush.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
