Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

I never knew that there was a statistic stating that. You learn something new everyday. That's sad.

Well, I should have said "according to the polls" to be more accurate, but yeah. For example this recent poll on gay rights:

While the report made clear that NBJC believes that "homophobia and heterosexism cut across communities and racial, class, and ethnic lines," the group also acknowledged that "the attitudes and perceptions of African Americans toward marriage equality is sometimes contradictory or at odds with the community's long history of working to secure rights on the behalf of disenfranchised or marginalized groups."

According to the report, African Americans "are virtually the only constituency in the country that has not become more supportive over the last dozen years, falling from a high of 65 percent support for gay rights in 1996 to only 40 percent in 2004."

"Nearly three-quarters of blacks say that homosexual relations are always wrong, and over one-third say that AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior," the report stated. "Overall, blacks are 14 percentage points more likely to hold both positions than whites."

Younger people generally are more supportive of LGBT rights than are older persons. But significantly more black youth (55 percent) "believe that homosexuality is always wrong" than do Latino (36 percent) or white (35 percent) youth, according to a recent study from the University of Chicago.

 

[GhaleonEB]

In case anyone was wondering why Obama dropped Washington state from his list of states his first ad is running in, SUSA has Obama up by 15.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c4ab7114-09d9-428a-8ea9-74a13485d8e7

Which is pretty consistant with most polls. I love that McCain has this as a wing state in his "strategy briefing". :lol

 

[avatar299]

"Nearly three-quarters of blacks say that homosexual relations are always wrong, and over one-third say that AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior," the report stated. "Overall, blacks are 14 percentage points more likely to hold both positions than whites."

Man, black people are really sensitive about aids:lol

Spoiler

pathetic

 

[Gaborn]

Man, black people are really sensitive about aids:lol

Spoiler

pathetic

Well, really though a lot of it is understandable. Blacks have historically had very strong ties to religion, a lot of which developed or at least was strengthened during slavery, giving the slaves something to hang on to, and for many of them that involved adopting a strong christian faith that they passed down generation by generation. So I kind of understand where it's coming from even though I disagree with them on those issues generally.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I never knew that there was a statistic stating that. You learn something new everyday. That's sad.

Yeah it sucks, but as Gaborn shows, it's a reality.

The truth is that blacks are conservative except on issues that relate to race. The reason that the republicans can't get us to vote for them is because frankly, the republican party is seen as racist by the black community. Conservatives in general seem to side against us on every issue, while liberals (Although they have their problems with blacks as well), tend to be at least more understanding of the problems we see with the country.

Of course, race relates to a lot of issues, so dems shouldn't be too worried about losing black support any time soon....

Honestly, I think that although we are more conservative on gays right now, I don't think that our views of them are as "baked in the cake" as they are in the highly conservative section of white America. I think that our community needs to work on getting rid of this "machoism" in our culture, and we need to step up to the plate in regards to women issues as well, once that happens, gay-rights will fall in line.

 

[Tamanon]

Considering how hated gays are in rap music, it seems like something other than the traditional church-based dislike.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Well, really though a lot of it is understandable. Blacks have historically had very strong ties to religion, a lot of which developed or at least was strengthened during slavery, giving the slaves something to hang on to, and for many of them that involved adopting a strong christian faith that they passed down generation by generation. So I kind of understand where it's coming from even though I disagree with them on those issues generally.

Now that you mention this, I understand. In my case, I was raised in the church, but I'm not a churchgoer now, as an added FYI, my wife is white. I accept everyone as their own person.

Yeah it sucks, but as Gaborn shows, it's a reality.

The truth is that blacks are conservative except on issues that relate to race. The reason that the republicans can't get us to vote for them is because frankly, the republican party is seen as racist by the black community. Conservatives in general seem to side against us on every issue, while liberals (Although they have their problems with blacks as well), tend to be at least more understanding of the problems we see with the country.

Of course, race relates to a lot of issues, so dems shouldn't be too worried about losing black support any time soon....

Honestly, I think that although we are more conservative on gays right now, I don't think that our views of them are as "baked in the cake" as they are in the highly conservative section of white America. I think that our community needs to work on getting rid of this "machoism" in our culture, and we need to step up to the plate in regards to women issues as well, once that happens, gay-rights will fall in line.

I agree 100%

 

[Mumei]

Well, really though a lot of it is understandable. Blacks have historically had very strong ties to religion, a lot of which developed or at least was strengthened during slavery, giving the slaves something to hang on to, and for many of them that involved adopting a strong christian faith that they passed down generation by generation. So I kind of understand where it's coming from even though I disagree with them on those issues generally.

What I find confusing and contradictory about Obama is that he will pull that dog whistle crap with McClurkin or someone anti-gay in his campaign, but then he'll upbraid his black audience in a speech (e.g. the MLK speech at Ebeneezer). It seems like it isn't calculated (otherwise why the mixed signals?), but it is weird.

 

[Mumei]

Honestly, I think that although we are more conservative on gays right now, I don't think that our views of them are as "baked in the cake" as they are in the highly conservative section of white America. I think that our community needs to work on getting rid of this "machoism" in our culture, and we need to step up to the plate in regards to women issues as well, once that happens, gay-rights will fall in line.

You might find this interesting regarding the Black Power and gay liberation movements of the 1960s and 70s:

In the months following the Stonewall riots of June 1969, the fledgling gay liberation movement sought to form alliances with other progressive movements. But New Left groups were usually no less homophobic than the rest of the country.

A breakthrough came, however, in the summer of 1970, when Black Panther Party leader Huey P. Newton announced support for gay and lesbian equality. His statement was the first pro-gay pronouncement to come from the black civil rights movement.

"A Letter from Huey to the Revolutionary Brothers and Sisters About the Women's Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements," published August 21, 1970, in the party's newspaper, was as much a reprimand to fellow Panthers for their homophobia and sexism as it was a call for coalition.

"As we all know," Newton wrote, "sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we're afraid we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the woman or shut her up because we're afraid that she might castrate us." The remedy, he said, is to "gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people."

Admitting that the party had failed to consider gay issues, Newton observed: "Homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. Maybe they might be the most oppressed people in the society."

Newton also addressed what had become a particularly sore point for gay activists: "The terms 'faggot' and 'punk' should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people."

I just found it interesting that he noticed that women's issues were intertwined with gay issues, too.

 

[Tamanon]

What I find confusing and contradictory about Obama is that he will pull that dog whistle crap with McClurkin or someone anti-gay in his campaign, but then he'll upbraid his black audience in a speech (e.g. the MLK speech at Ebeneezer). It seems like it isn't calculated (otherwise why the mixed signals?), but it is weird.

I dont' think he picked McClurkin because he was anti-gay at all, just because he's associated with the churches. Probably didn't even think about the anti-gay bit that early in the campaign.

 

[Gaborn]

What I find confusing and contradictory about Obama is that he will pull that dog whistle crap with McClurkin or someone anti-gay in his campaign, but then he'll upbraid his black audience in a speech (e.g. the MLK speech at Ebeneezer). It seems like it isn't calculated (otherwise why the mixed signals?), but it is weird.

Honestly, I sometimes wonder if Obama knew about McClurkin, but he wanted to do with him what he did with Ohio and NAFTA, use him to appeal to homophobic but religious black voters and then claim he didn't know McClurkin's background. I just find it incredible that he wouldn't have done even a 5 minute background check on McClurkin, his past wasn't exactly a secret.

Edit: just to be clear, this theory, and it's JUST a theory would be Obama appealing to religious impulses of South Carolinians and simply not caring (though being aware) about his homophobic background.

 

[Mumei]

I dont' think he picked McClurkin because he was anti-gay at all, just because he's associated with the churches. Probably didn't even think about the anti-gay bit that early in the campaign.

You might be right; I remember when the story first came out, a lot of the gay blogs were asking, "How the hell did they screw up the vetting of this guy?"

Maybe it just was a screw-up; who knows?

Also, I was flipping through some stuff of mine earlier, and I found this amusing (on the subject of the history of gay marriage):

After the local district attorney’s office rules that there are no county laws preventing two people of the same sex from getting married, a county clerk in Boulder, CO issues a marriage license to two gay men. Over the next month, she issues five more licenses to same-sex couples. “I don’t profess to be knowledgeable about homosexuality or even understand it,” says the clerk, Clela Rorex. “But it’s not my business why people get married. No minority should be discriminated.”

Rorex herself soon becomes the object of national attention and begins receiving death threats and harassing phone calls, including one from a caller who screams, “I hope you suffer, because God doesn’t like this!” One disgruntled cowboy tries to protest the gay marriages by applying for a license to wed his favorite horse, an eight-year-old mare; Rorex rejects the application on the grounds that the horse is underage.

:lol

 

[FitzOfRage]

I never knew that there was a statistic stating that. You learn something new everyday. That's sad.

Pushing the gay marriage issue in 2004 definitely helped move the needle slightly on Bush's support among African Americans. Now overall, you're talking about a couple of points, but it really hit home in certain regions. He almost doubled his support among blacks in Ohio and Florida from 2000 to 2004. Obviously any gains in those states in particular are huge. I remember reading that almost 30% of blacks in northern Florida voted for Bush based on "moral values", which of course just means "gay marriage and abortion."

 

[Gaborn]

You might be right; I remember when the story first came out, a lot of the gay blogs were asking, "How the hell did they screw up the vetting of this guy?"

Maybe it just was a screw-up; who knows?

Also, I was flipping through some stuff of mine earlier, and I found this amusing (on the subject of the history of gay marriage):



:lol

LOL! that's fantastic. It's so reminiscent of the anti-gay (though better known as anti-abortion) Neal Horsley and his mule.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Well, really though a lot of it is understandable. Blacks have historically had very strong ties to religion, a lot of which developed or at least was strengthened during slavery, giving the slaves something to hang on to, and for many of them that involved adopting a strong christian faith that they passed down generation by generation. So I kind of understand where it's coming from even though I disagree with them on those issues generally.

Pretty much, opiate of the masses in effect.

However, I do think that there is more too it then just that though. Religion is part of it, but like I was saying, male chauvinism and sexism also play their role. Lastly, our community has this weird sense of, I dunno, not liking white people, but not liking other groups either....:lol Our opinion of Jews is pretty bad as well I believe. We just don't mesh with anyone.

Considering how hated gays are in rap music, it seems like something other than the traditional church-based dislike.

Honestly, I don't think that gay-bashing in hiphop is as bad as people make it out to be. I mean, of course there isn't any pro-gay songs or anything, but it's not necessarily apart of the culture or something like that. But you are right to an extent, the machoism in rap is similar to that of the community as a whole.

You might find this interesting regarding the Black Power and gay liberation movements of the 1960s and 70s:

I just found it interesting that he noticed that women's issues were intertwined with gay issues, too.

This is why I consider the BPP the most progressive black group formed in the country.

 

[Gaborn]

Pretty much, opiate of the masses in effect.

However, I do think that there is more too it then just that though. Religion is part of it, but like I was saying, male chauvinism and sexism also play their role. Lastly, our community has this weird sense of, I dunno, not liking white people, but not liking other groups either....:lol Our opinion of Jews is pretty bad as well I believe. We just don't mesh with anyone.

I think considering the past blacks are allowed to be a little bit anti-social overall.

Honestly, I don't think that gay-bashing in hiphop is as bad as people make it out to be. I mean, of course there isn't any pro-gay songs or anything, but it's not necessarily apart of the culture or something like that. But you are right to an extent, the machoism in rap is similar to that of the community as a whole.

True, though the real problem is more the Caribbean reggae artists like Beenie Man, as well as a gentler form of machismo in the African American community.

This is why I consider the BPP the most progressive black group formed in the country.

And you may well be right.

 

[Diablos]

when the hell did Iran become this "omg supreme nuclear terrorist" threat to humanity?

When it's an election year and the Republicans are backed into a corner and try to rely on old tricks to save themselves.

 

[Gig]

Ever since Obama locked up the nomination I have been thinking how terrible it would be if Hilary was his running mate, then I realized if that happened she wouldn't be a senator for New York anymore (which would be so awesome). Hilary for VP!!!!!

 

[Azih]

Two things.

1. Gaborn: would you *please* stop guessing at why African Americans individually or as a group answer polls as they do?

2. Are the stats about African Americans and homophobia controlled for level of education and prosperity?

 

[Gaborn]

Two things.

1. Gaborn: would you *please* stop guessing at why African Americans individually or as a group answer polls as they do?

My interpretation isn't exactly unusual, in fact that's basically the standard accepted sociological explanation. Though I'm not sure why it bothers you.

2. Are the stats about African Americans and homophobia controlled for level of education and prosperity?

They're a national look at the issue, but so far every other poll I've seen has shown me basically the same result over the years and it's an acknowledged pattern that has been repeatedly replicated over the years. It's not exactly a hidden secret either.

 

[mugwhump]

"Newton also addressed what had become a particularly sore point for gay activists: "The terms 'faggot' and 'punk' should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people.""

...punk was a homosexual slur?

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

...punk was a homosexual slur?

news to me too.

 

[GhaleonEB]

...punk was a homosexual slur?

And faggot had a very different meaning, as well. I'm reading "The Hobbit" to my kid these days, and they throw a lot of faggots on the fire.

 

[Ventrue]

I'm reading "The Hobbit" to my kid these days, and they throw a lot of faggots on the fire.

Those bastard little midgets.

 

[Tamanon]

It looks like punk was an archaic term for prostitute....?

 

[SouthernDragon]

I always thought punk referred to young rebellious kids, derived from the 80s punk rock music scene.

 

[Gaborn]

...punk was a homosexual slur?

Hmm... I didn't know it either, I don't really think of it as a slur, but I think I can begin to see how it is:

punk n:
1. A young person, especially a member of a rebellious counterculture group.
2. A young man who is the sexual partner of an older man.
3. A prostitute.
4. Music
a. Punk Rock .
b. A punk rocker.

 

[Tamanon]

Who knew? From dictionary.com

1. Slang. a. something or someone worthless or unimportant.
b. a young ruffian; hoodlum.
c. an inexperienced youth.
d. a young male partner of a homosexual.
e. an apprentice, esp. in the building trades.
f. Prison Slang. a boy

I guess they succeeded in getting it scrubbed from public nomenclature!

 

[SouthernDragon]

Prostitute? Gay?

Wow, I had no idea.

 

[WickedAngel]

Hmm... I didn't know it either, I don't really think of it as a slur, but I think I can begin to see how it is:

I remember when Wolf used the phrase in Escape from Alcatraz when trying to recruit Clint as his new bitch. He said something along the lines of "Well, I've been looking for a new punk."

 

[Mumei]

I sort of glossed over the mention of the word "punk." Thanks for pointing it out; you learn something new every day.

 

[Tamanon]

At least it explains all the tight pants by Iggy Pop!

 

[Kitschkraft]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...le/49_say_government_should_regulate_internet

This kind of shit scares me.

 

[Tamanon]

It's probably not that dramatic of users, I'd say almost all of the 25% that use the internet most likely support regulating it.

 

[Gaborn]

I remember when Wolf used the phrase in Escape from Alcatraz when trying to recruit Clint as his new bitch. He said something along the lines of "Well, I've been looking for a new punk."

:lol :lol :lol interesting.

 

[Mumei]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...le/49_say_government_should_regulate_internet

This kind of shit scares me.

If you read the article, I think I understand what the respondents are talking about; they mean regulating insofar as behavior like this:

The findings come as a Missouri woman faces an unprecedented federal prosecution for allegedly setting up an account for a fictitious 16-year-old on an online social networking site to harass the 13-year-old daughter of a neighbor. The girl, Megan Meier, ultimately committed suicide after being viciously rejected by the made-up boy.

Lori Drew, the woman in question, pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges of conspiracy and accessing a protected computer to obtain information. She allegedly created the MySpace account after her daughter had a falling out with Meier.

Seventy-one percent (71%) have some awareness of the Drew case, with only 25% saying they know nothing about it at all. Women (79%) more than men

(67%) think Internet harassment should be a crime. Age is also a factor, with support for criminalizing such behavior higher the older the respondent.

Or at least I hope that that's what they mean.

 

[Gaborn]

If you read the article, I think I understand what the respondents are talking about; they mean regulating insofar as behavior like this:



Or at least I hope that that's what they mean.

But they already (I believe) decided to charge the woman with harassment. Our existing laws cover harassment that takes place over the internet, I think this goes more to the net neutrality debate.

 

[Mumei]

But they already (I believe) decided to charge the woman with harassment. Our existing laws cover harassment that takes place over the internet, I think this goes more to the net neutrality debate.

No, I think you misunderstand me.

I agree with you on the subject of net neutrality; I'm simply trying to understand what might be going through the mind of respondents. They think "regulation" and that's what they think - harassment, fraud, and so forth.

You have to remember, people vote for presidential candidates because they think he'll fix the sign near their house that has been screwed up for six months. They'll vote for a candidate because he gave them a pin. They'll vote against their Senator because the road in their local neighborhood has had a pothole in it for six months.

And so forth. People are stupid and uninformed as hell; I'm not sure people understand what "regulation" means in this context.

Edit:

Look at the set up of the survey:

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about a Missouri woman accused in a MySpace hoax that led to the suicide of a teenage girl?


14% Very closely
27% Somewhat closely
30% Not very closely
25% Not at all
4% Not sure

2* The accused woman allegedly set up a fake MySpace account and sent cruel messages to the teenage girl. Should it be a crime to harass a person over the internet?

73% Yes
13% No
13% Not sure

3* Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the internet like it does radio and television?

49% Yes
35% No
16% Not sure

So, just looking at that:

The first question is about the case about the MySpace harassment that ended in suicide. The second question is over whether such harassment should be a crime. The third question is whether the FCC should regulate the internet.

Now to the average person, what is going to be on their mind when you ask them about regulation after the previous two questions? Harassment. In all honesty, I'm willing to bet that if respondents had been asked questions which had to do with other issues relating to "regulation" (there is "regulation" insofar as the harassment described is illegal, for instance) that are actually pertinent to the net neutrality issue that support would be much lower.

But that's just a guess.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about it; it seems like a pretty obvious example of a question order effect.

 

[Gaborn]

No, I think you misunderstand me.

I agree with you on the subject of net neutrality; I'm simply trying to understand what might be going through the mind of respondents. They think "regulation" and that's what they think - harassment, fraud, and so forth.

You have to remember, people vote for presidential candidates because they think he'll fix the sign near their house that has been screwed up for six months. They'll vote for a candidate because he gave them a pin. They'll vote against their Senator because the road in their local neighborhood has had a pothole in it for six months.

And so forth. People are stupid and uninformed as hell; I'm not sure people understand what "regulation" means in this context.

Edit:

Look at the set up of the survey:


So, just looking at that:

The first question is about the case about the MySpace harassment that ended in suicide. The second question is over whether such harassment should be a crime. The third question is whether the FCC should regulate the internet.

Now to the average person, what is going to be on their mind when you ask them about regulation after the previous two questions? Harassment. In all honesty, I'm willing to bet that if respondents had been asked questions which had to do with other issues relating to "regulation" (there is "regulation" insofar as the harassment described is illegal, for instance) that are actually pertinent to the net neutrality issue that support would be much lower.

But that's just a guess.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about it; it seems like a pretty obvious example of a question order effect.

Right, what I'm suggesting is that people want to use the story of the Missouri woman (which is a non-issue with regards to internet regulation since existing laws cover the issue) to push for OTHER regulations of the internet. In other words I'm questioning the intent of the poll and suggesting the desired result was to encourage people to think the internet NEEDS to be regulated to prevent things like this, that in fact people may not understand that this is covered by existing law and thus it becomes a wedge issue for internet regulation in other forms.

 

[Dan]

The survey is obviously bullshit. If you designed a survey like that for a college course, you'd fail. It's horribly leading. The FCC doesn't have shit to do with that MySpace situation.

 

[Nicodimas]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/index.html

At issue is the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, a $23 billion bill that funded levee and flood control programs along with dozens of other projects across the country, including Everglades and other habitat restoration, emergency water supply storage, lock and dam security, and water quality improvement.

The goverment has proven they are so good at this..lets let them spend the money instead of putting it into private business hands. -sarcasm

Get a private business on levees that you can sue vs the govt which you cannot. see a difference?

 

[Ventrue]

The survey is obviously bullshit. If you designed a survey like that for a college course, you'd fail. It's horribly leading.

This comes to mind.

 

[SouthernDragon]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/index.html



The goverment has proven they are so good at this..lets let them spend the money instead of putting it into private business hands. -sarcasm

Get a private business on levees that you can sue vs the govt which you cannot. see a difference?

I dunno, companies tend to stonewall by dragging out litigation so that the prosecution runs out of money. At least with government I can vote the incompetent out of office.

 

[Dan]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/index.html

The Senate votes were 91-4 for the first vote and 79-14 for the override.

I want to know more about the cowards that voted for the bill and then got scared off when Bush vetoed it.

 

[Chrono]

when the hell did Iran become this "omg supreme nuclear terrorist" threat to humanity?

sheesh. And people wonder why "Islamofascists" hate us.

Yeah, no wonder they flew airplanes into buildings, poor misunderstood mass murderers! Their feelings were hurt! :lol

For fuck's sake, dumb right wing psychos hyping up another threat doesn't mean those poor fundamentalists are misunderstood and misrepresented. They're a backward and hateful fucking group that doesn't belong in a modern world. And any reason that is remotely sane for them to 'hate' anybody is just a rallying point. Their ideology and mentality is irrational and rotten at its fucking core, no matter how much nicer you want them to look.

And why is that? What is this obsession with making them look nicer? To sleep better at night knowing the world is a better place? Isn't possible to criticize a group without hating everything they're for and loving everything they're against for no reason? They blame others for everything, so why not go the other way and blame everything on yourself. After all, if they're so dumb, the exact opposite has to be very smart! Fucking hell, nothing is discussed on the facts, just who is for and against that issue and what that means. Like everything is a proxy war between identities.

Then again liberals in the US can afford to use them like that, after all their life isn't and won't be affected by them, just the right wing christians. It doesn't matter that, say for example, millions in Iran are barely living, as long as they're thousands of miles away they can continue being just another issue to mock republicans with.

 

[User 10639]

They're a national look at the issue, but so far every other poll I've seen has shown me basically the same result over the years and it's an acknowledged pattern that has been repeatedly replicated over the years. It's not exactly a hidden secret either.

You didn't answer his question.

The survey is obviously bullshit. If you designed a survey like that for a college course, you'd fail. It's horribly leading. The FCC doesn't have shit to do with that MySpace situation.

Reminds me of push polls. "If you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" Ugh.

 

[Zaptruder]

For fuck's sake, dumb right wing psychos hyping up another threat doesn't mean those poor fundamentalists are misunderstood and misrepresented. They're a backward and hateful fucking group that doesn't belong in a modern world.

Neither group should be in the modern world... but both are. Personally I think they should both go live on an island together and either kill each other or learn to hold hands together.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Yeah, no wonder they flew airplanes into buildings, poor misunderstood mass murderers! Their feelings were hurt! :lol

For fuck's sake, dumb right wing psychos hyping up another threat doesn't mean those poor fundamentalists are misunderstood and misrepresented. They're a backward and hateful fucking group that doesn't belong in a modern world. And any reason that is remotely sane for them to 'hate' anybody is just a rallying point. Their ideology and mentality is irrational and rotten at its fucking core, no matter how much nicer you want them to look.

And why is that? What is this obsession with making them look nicer? To sleep better at night knowing the world is a better place? Isn't possible to criticize a group without hating everything they're for and loving everything they're against for no reason? They blame others for everything, so why not go the other way and blame everything on yourself. After all, if they're so dumb, the exact opposite has to be very smart! Fucking hell, nothing is discussed on the facts, just who is for and against that issue and what that means. Like everything is a proxy war between identities.

Then again liberals in the US can afford to use them like that, after all their life isn't and won't be affected by them, just the right wing christians. It doesn't matter that, say for example, millions in Iran are barely living, as long as they're thousands of miles away they can continue being just another issue to mock republicans with.

 

[Amir0x]

Ew @ that caller on CSpan Washington Journal.

"My question is, do you really think Obama would be where he was if he were not black, with his credentials?"

I facepalmed, since this caller was from Pennsylvania like me.

 

[worldrunover]

Ew @ that caller on CSpan Washington Journal.

"My question is, do you really think Obama would be where he was if he were not black, with his credentials?"

I facepalmed, since this caller was from Pennsylvania like me.

Was the caller Geraldine Ferraro?