DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:

Spidey wrote:Well I don’t want to go on & on speaking for Woody but, I think the point here is to associate him with Sodamn Insane or terrorism, not to make a racial point....

How does the name Hussien associate someone with terrorism? Yes Saddam Hussein has that as his surname but having the same name as someone else doesn't usually imply you share any other similar characteristics. John Wayne Gacy and John Wayne, both pedophiles and mass murderers or both movie stars?!?

The only way it associates Obama with terrorists is if Woody thinks the listener believes all Hussiens are terrorists. I don't believe Woody believes that but he knows Obama and his supporters would be aggravated by his using that name...it's a poke in the eye that only works by playing off of the underlying bigotry implied.

I know this has been addressed, but let me make one point. Any time shortly after WWII, I can assure you that very few people named their children "Adolf". You can't dismiss human nature with a "clinical evaluation". It won't wash.

So Duper, if I said the name \"King Hussein\" you would think of Saddam?

Woody, come on, we know you better than that.

\"I never once thought of Saddam....\"

It was a political shot, one of many I'm sure we'll see in these forums over the next few months.

-----------------------------

Moving on, back on topic...

The thing that scares me is that so many voters pick their candidate based on ridiculous rationale. There are:
- the 'aesthetics' voters, who vote for whoever they believe is the most visually appealing (this is a scary percentage, as I recall)
- the 'personality' voters, who vote for the person with the most charm
- the 'regional' voters, for whoever came from near them geographically
- the 'pet issue' voters, who only consider the candidate's stance on one issue
...and my favorite...
- the blind... er, 'straight-party-line'... voters

woodchip wrote:As to being racist, lets not presume too much. Baracks mother was white. As such he is neither white, nor black but rather a mulatto. So the black folk are being scammed that he is the Great Black Hope when in reality he had to join Rev. Wrights church to get "Black" credentials. What? He is so embarrassed about the white side of fence that he wants to disavow himself from his "Whitey" side?

...
Woody, you do realise that black people are called so because of the colour of their skin, right? Nothing got to do with their parents what soever! (well, aside from DNA)

Tiger, you do realize you’re not allowed to call people black anymore, that would technically make Barak a “African-Caucasian American“…nothing to do with skin color whatsoever!

Spidey wrote:Tiger, you do realize you’re not allowed to call people black anymore,

Yes you are. Some people like to discourage it, but frankly I think that's ridiculous.

TIGERassault wrote: Woody, you do realise that black people are called so because of the colour of their skin, right? Nothing got to do with their parents what soever! (well, aside from DNA)

Not to burst your bubble but there are not many people with black skin in America. Most all are shades of brown. So it would be more correct to call them "brown" African/Caucasian Americans

apparently you only need a certain very small percentage of African descent to be considered African.

It's one of those weird things... a topic on it's own.
but i'm gonna roll with it all the same:

It's merely a cultural identity. Eventually, generations after inter-colour marriages are no longer taboo (which happened what, only a few decades ago - conservatives still try to keep that taboo going, coz it's what they do) we'll be so generic \"human colour\" that we'll all equally identify with all colour-based cultures.