whateverdude Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 "I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me." real class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You just know as thin-skinned as Obama is, he is NOT going to like the fact that Samuel L. Jackson doesn't think he's "!@#$" enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Let's face it, millions and millions of people voted for Obama simply because he was black. He's really not saying anything that is some sort of new revelation or anything, he's just saying it how it is. I'm sure there are alot of Afro Americans that can relate to him, he's kinda like that crazy black uncle that goes off the reservation from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Let's face it, millions and millions of people voted for Obama simply because he was black. He's really not saying anything that is some sort of new revelation or anything, he's just saying it how it is. I'm sure there are alot of Afro Americans that can relate to him, he's kinda like that crazy black uncle that goes off the reservation from time to time. Are you referring to Samuel L. Jackson or Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 real class That's what I like about Sam. He just tells it like it is, because as long as it doesn't !@#$ up his tee time he simply doesn't give a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 That's what I like about Sam. He just tells it like it is, because as long as it doesn't !@#$ up his tee time he simply doesn't give a ****. Again, are you referring to Samuel L. Jackson or Obama?....................................lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 for because he's black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As if blacks in 2008 were the first ethnic group to vote for someone solely because the candidate was "one of their own." What honesty. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As if blacks in 2008 were the first ethnic group to vote for someone solely because the candidate was "one of their own." What honesty. Good for him. Exactly. Honesty is refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As if blacks in 2008 were the first ethnic group to vote for someone solely because the candidate was "one of their own."What honesty. Good for him. Exactly. Honesty is refreshing. Except that "all animals are not equal" Supposing Harrison Ford announces; "I'm voting for Romney, because he's white" Would he rate a "good for him" for his "refreshing" honesty ? ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Except that "all animals are not equal" Supposing Harrison Ford announces; "I'm voting for Romney, because he's white" Would he rate a "good for him" for his "refreshing" honesty ? ? . If the next 40 presidents are black you'd definitely be justified to vote for a qualified white guy just because he's white- right now I wouldn't hold it against women if they voted for a qualified woman just because she's a woman, things have a historical context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 I reject the statement that blacks voted for Obama because he is black. If that was the case Herman Cain should have had much higher support among blacks especially middle class blacks and Jessie Jackson should have been elected twice already. It's mostly Ideology and the brain washing of blacks by the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) If the next 40 presidents are black you'd definitely be justified to vote for a qualified white guy just because he's white- right now I wouldn't hold it against women if they voted for a qualified woman just because she's a woman, things have a historical context. Sorry, thats a pretty weak attempt at justification for bias. Just so we all can participate in this "historical context" reference..........................is forty the actual number ? or thirty ? Is there a quota system ? What you mean is, its certainly understandable that someone votes for a black candidate after a history of white candidates, but does that make it acceptable ? No........voting by skin pigmentation is wrong no matter how you try to excuse it. . Edited February 12, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 If the next 40 presidents are black you'd definitely be justified to vote for a qualified white guy just because he's white- right now I wouldn't hold it against women if they voted for a qualified woman just because she's a woman, things have a historical context. So a white guy and a woman have to be qualified to be president but it wasn't necessary for the black guy that's presently in the oval office to be qualified? That smacks of racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 If the next 40 presidents are black you'd definitely be justified to vote for a qualified white guy just because he's white- right now I wouldn't hold it against women if they voted for a qualified woman just because she's a woman, things have a historical context. I think women are smarter than that. No.......wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Sorry, thats a pretty weak attempt at justification for bias. Just so we all can participate in this "historical context" reference..........................is forty the actual number ? or thirty ? Is there a quota system ? What you mean is, its certainly understandable that someone votes for a black candidate after a history of white candidates, but does that make it acceptable ? No........voting by skin pigmentation is wrong no matter how you try to excuse it. . Well he did say "qualified" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Sorry, thats a pretty weak attempt at justification for bias. Just so we all can participate in this "historical context" reference..........................is forty the actual number ? or thirty ? Is there a quota system ? What you mean is, its certainly understandable that someone votes for a black candidate after a history of white candidates, but does that make it acceptable ? No........voting by skin pigmentation is wrong no matter how you try to excuse it. . Two hundred years of slavery, a hundred years of institutional discrimination, and fifty years and counting of conscious or unconscious discrimination is historical context. Let me give two examples that show a least unconscious discrimination continues to this day. resumes A recent study shows that people with "white-sounding" names are 50 percent more likely to get a response to their resume than are those with "black-sounding" names. The study, done by professors at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology and the University of Chicago Graduate school of Business, mailed 5,000 resumes in response to job ads in both the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. Four resumes were sent for each job posting; two well-qualified resumes, one each with a "black-" and "white-sounding" name, and two lesser qualified resumes, again one each for black and white. Whites Receive More Responses The resumes that had less gaps in employment and higher-level skills - if they belonged to "white-sounding names - had a 30 percent greater chance of being responded to than the less qualified resume. However, this was not true for the same skilled resume of a "black-sounding" name. Names were chosen after a study of birth certificates. "White" names included Kristen, Greg, Neil, Emily, Brett, Anne, and Jill. "Black" names included Kareem, Tamika, Rasheed, Ebony, Aisha, and Tyrone. Resumes with "black-sounding" names had only a 6.7 percent chance of receiving a response to their resume, while resumes with "white-sounding" names had a 10.1 percent chance . The study found as much discrimination in less-skilled jobs, such as cashiering and mailroom attendants, as in more heavily skills-based positions such as regional sales manager and assistant to the president jobs. selling online Let’s say you were in the market for an iPod and wanted to find a bargain, so you searched in a local online market like Craigslist to find one.? Would it matter to you whether, in the photograph of the unopened iPod, the person holding the iPod (all you can see is their hand and wrist) was black or white?? What if the hand holding the iPod had a visible tattoo?I suspect that most people would say that the skin color of the iPod holder wouldn’t matter to them.? More people likely would say the tattoo might keep them from responding to the ad. Economists have never liked to rely on what people say, however.? We believe that actions speak louder than words.? And actions certainly do speak loudly in some new research carried out by economists Jennifer Doleac and Luke Stein.? Over the course of a year, they placed hundreds of ads in local online markets, randomly altering whether the hand holding an iPod for sale was black, white, or white with a big tattoo.? Here is what they found: Black sellers do worse than white sellers on a variety of market outcome measures: they receive 13% fewer responses and 17% fewer offers. These effects are strongest in the Northeast, and are similar in magnitude to those associated with the display of a wrist tattoo. Conditional on receiving at least one offer, black sellers also receive 2-4% lower offers, despite the selfselected-and presumably less biased-pool of buyers. In addition, buyers corresponding with black sellers exhibit lower trust: they are 17% less likely to include their name in e-mails, 44% less likely to accept delivery by mail, and 56% more likely to express concern about making a long-distance payment. We find evidence that black sellers suffer particularly poor outcomes in thin markets; it appears that discrimination may not “survive” in the presence of significant competition among buyers. Furthermore, black sellers do worst in the most racially isolated markets and markets with high property crime rates, suggesting a role for statistical discrimination in explaining the disparity. So what can you conclude from this study?? The clearest result is that if you want to sell something online, whether you are black or white, find someone white to put in the picture.? I suppose you could say that advertisers figured this out long ago, and actually go one step further, making sure the white person is also a good looking blond woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yeah, That Qualifications thing is tough... 1. Born a U.S. Citizen. 2. 35 years old. 3. 14 years of residency in the US 4. breathing Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Two hundred years of slavery, a hundred years of institutional discrimination, and fifty years and counting of conscious or unconscious discrimination is historical context. Let me give two examples that show a least unconscious discrimination continues to this day. resumes selling online So, is that a reason to elect an unqualified black guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Two hundred years of slavery, a hundred years of institutional discrimination, and fifty years and counting of conscious or unconscious discrimination is historical context. Let me give two examples that show a least unconscious discrimination continues to this day. resumes selling online Seriously ? you're trying to claim that because of past discrimination ( and of course we could fill the board with examples) that its okay for a minority citizen to then vote for a member of their minority just to make up for past injustices? This isnt really about that, it was a simple story about Samuel L. Jackson admitting that he voted for Mr. Obama because of his skin color and now his disappointment in him. After we got a few "he's just being honest" replies, I half-jokinngly pointed out that the reverse wouldn't be true. Now you seem to want to grant some permission slip that we should allow for some voters to vote on color, depending on their groups history. I respectfully disagree. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts