Andrew, you may be surprised to hear this but not all "white" people came over on the Mayflower.

Many are first, second, and third generation Americans, who came to this country well after the civil war. The concept that "Most white peoples ancestors owned slaves, is itself racist and delusional. I am second generation and my people had nothing to do with any of the madness.


I like others who asked the question, are sick to death of this hypergeneralized crud. If people don't like being treated like stereotypes they should stop acting like bad ones. I think this is the lesson of Obama, and why he will be good for black americans.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
I think part of the problem addressing the issues people have with Obama is that so many of them are contradictory... At the start of the race he "wasn't black enough" then he became "radical black supremist"... he was a "lightweight who would get slaughtered by the Repulican machine" then he became a "ruthless politician who'll do anything to win"... he was a muslim then he was a radical-christian... he was too liberal then he became too centrist. When the anti-Obama crowd decide on what they're issue is with him and stop throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, then we'll start discussing it.

The problem with Barack Obama is he's like someone with a multiple personality disorder. Who he says he is today, may not be the same person tomorrow. His stance on major issues change like the direction of the wind or more accurately public opinion.

If he gaffs or gets caught in an obvious lie, you can expct a flowery, non-sensical, make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside speech to be forthcoming.

While there is a "white-guilt" motivation for a minority of people voting for Barack Obama, there is a racial, though not racist, motivator for the majority. People are desperate for change, and Obama's race itself represents this change. Because he appears so different than any other presidential candidate, for many this in-and-of-itself is change, regardless of what his politics may be. Many are not even sure what his politics are, outside of change, and see in him whatever changes they wish for the country.

And make no mistake, people are both sides are using race in their attacks for and against Obama. Hysterical Obama supporters will use racial-incidents are a shield to protect him from any criticism, portraying any critique or attack as a racially-motivated. At the same time, real racists will prey on that hysteria; they will attempt to dismiss criticism of genuine racist-attacks as part of the hysteria. Both sides feed off one another.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
While there is a "white-guilt" motivation for a minority of people voting for Barack Obama, there is a racial, though not racist, motivator for the majority.

When people vote for a black guy just to show how racist they aren't, they are only proving how racist they are.
Or to put it another way, racial equality isn't proven by a black man running for president, its proven when he can lose, and its not blamed on racism.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
The problem with Barack Obama is he's like someone with a multiple personality disorder. Who he says he is today, may not be the same person tomorrow. His stance on major issues change like the direction of the wind or more accurately public opinion.

If he gaffs or gets caught in an obvious lie, you can expct a flowery, non-sensical, make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside speech to be forthcoming.

What major issue changes has he made a 180 shift on?

Iraq? No. He still plans a 16 month drawdown of combat troops.

FISA? No. He still opposes Corporate immunity. He may have voted for a compromise bill, but there were real security reasons to get the bill passed.

Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

Now, if you want to talk switching opinions 180, McCain on the following:

Torture
Immigration
Offshore Drilling
Bush Tax Cuts
2008 GI Bill

Those are all issues where McCain *completely* changed his stand.

Originally posted by SKMDC1



Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

And this is why I say Obama supporters are messianic. Even when they state outright that he did in fact go back on his word, he didnt really because doing so was in his best interest.
In other words, its OK for Obama to break promises as long as its in his own best interest.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Whats so surprising? His mother was white. The chances that her white ancestors owned slaves is pretty high. Its just more fear mongering and racial bashing. "Look! A BLACK MAN WHOS ANCESTORS OWNED SLAVES"
:

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Now who is making stereotypical comments.

You do realize the the vast majority of people in America were immigrants well after Slavery was abolished here, right? For example my family has never owned slaves to my knowledge and if we ancestrally did, they would be Scots or Brits from the Viking days or Roman slaves from the "Good Old Emipire Days" of Caesar and his ilk..

Originally posted by SKMDC1
What major issue changes has he made a 180 shift on?

Iraq? No. He still plans a 16 month drawdown of combat troops.

FISA? No. He still opposes Corporate immunity. He may have voted for a compromise bill, but there were real security reasons to get the bill passed.

Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

Now, if you want to talk switching opinions 180, McCain on the following:

Torture
Immigration
Offshore Drilling
Bush Tax Cuts
2008 GI Bill

Those are all issues where McCain *completely* changed his stand.

So, McCain is a flip-flopper too! Does that somehow make Obama's Flip-flopping better, or relieve him of the responsibility for what he previously said?

Originally posted by SKMDC1
all of our chances are roughly 7%

I have stats saying 1.5%. You have them saying 7%.
I'm sure there are stats that fill in the gaps inbetween as well.

EITHER WAY .... what he said was dead wrong. 'LOTS' of whites didn't own slaves and there wasn't a "HIGH' chance.

It is MUCH more likely that Obama's black ancestors owned and sold black slaves. It's just a part of life in Africa and the fact that 25% of freed blacks in this country owned other blacks is something that people don't like to admit to.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SKMDC1
all of our chances are roughly 7%

I have stats saying 1.5%. You have them saying 7%.
I'm sure there are stats that fill in the gaps inbetween as well.

EITHER WAY .... what he said was dead wrong. 'LOTS' of whites didn't own slaves and there wasn't a "HIGH' chance.

It is MUCH more likely that Obama's black ancestors owned and sold black slaves. It's just a part of life in Africa and the fact that 25% of freed blacks in this country owned other blacks is something that people don't like to admit to.

You are both screwing the stats. Either figure only applies to those Americans whose ancestors were in the country during the time of slavery. And even then most would have 0 chance depending on thier ethnicity. As an example the Irish, whom actually caused the decline in slave usage in the south when they immigrated there as you could hire ten irishmen for the cost of one slave.
Now the fact is any black is far more likely than any white to have ancestors who traded in and owned african slaves simply because the practise of enslving your enemies predates european contact with africa by several thousand years.

However, on point, the reason slave ownership among freed blacks was so high, is that thier first act upon being freed was to attempt to buy thier family (wife children mother father etc) back out of slavery. Which only makes sense when you think about it. Either way, the chances of any American having ancestors who owned slaves in america, except for a very few lineages, is miniscule.

Originally posted by MagicaRose
How much does Obama pay you to do this?

I tried to find that out. I was searching .. and googling ... and I couldn't find anything on how much they get paid to get online and make excuse upon excuse upon excuse for Dali-bama.

Either those folks get paid really well or Obamessiah's disciples are useful idiots who spend their days online praising Obama for free. Nothing else logically can explain it.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
, the chances of any American having ancestors who owned slaves in america, except for a very few lineages, is miniscule.

Exactly. Thank you.

I brought some stats to make that point (but you said it better).
It isn't 'LOTS" and it isn't 'HIGHLY' likely that Obama's american
white ancestors owned slaves. However, It is VERY likely that
his black ones (who were in Africa and in the Islamic countries) did.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
That aside, race does play an indirect role in this election by mere fact of the historically significant fact that Obama is the first black presidential candidate.

Actually Maria Jesse Jackson was the first Black Presidential candidate. Obama isn't breaking any new ground here, he's simply following in the wake of someone else.

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by maria_stardust
That aside, race does play an indirect role in this election by mere fact of the historically significant fact that Obama is the first black presidential candidate.

Actually Maria Jesse Jackson was the first Black Presidential candidate. Obama isn't breaking any new ground here, he's simply following in the wake of someone else.

I think I would have voted for jesse before Obama at least I know where he stands.