This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Is McCain a cylon? *BSG SPOILERS*

edited May 2008 in Politics
Dun dun duh!!1
image
«1

Comments

  • That's impressive.
  • More importantly, did George W. co-star in B.J. and the Bear?

    image
  • Older than Christ.
  • Older than Christ.
    Oh, OK, I'll delete the part where I say "hay U guyz, has u seen bush iz chimp! lol", because clearly I thought no one had seen it before.
  • Why is it OK to compare GWB to a chimp but if you were comparing Obama to a chimp you would be labeled a racist?
  • Why is it OK to compare GWB to a chimp but if you were comparing Obama to a chimp you would be labeled a racist?
    The only comparrison between Obama and a chimp are that both have dark skin (chimp having black hair), whereas the comparrison you draw between Bush and a chimp is that they are both stupid relative to the average person.
  • Why is it OK to compare GWB to a chimp but if you were comparing Obama to a chimp you would be labeled a racist?
    The only comparrison between Obama and a chimp are that both have dark skin (chimp having black hair), whereas the comparrison you draw between Bush and a chimp is that they are both stupid relative to the average person.
    So, if I found a series of photographs where the facial expressions of a chimp and Obama were similar you would find it humorous and not racist?
  • edited May 2008
    So, if I found a series of photographs where the facial expressions of a chimp and Obama were similar you would find it humorous and not racist?
    It's called Context. Because of historical context of a group of people being compared to chimps as a way to show that they were less then Human. White People did not have this problem for the most part.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited May 2008
    Why is it OK to compare GWB to a chimp but if you were comparing Obama to a chimp you would be labeled a racist?
    Historical context.

    Have you seen Clerks II? There is a pretty fair amount of it dedicated to the term "Porch Monkey". The point being there is a significant derogatory history to the association.
    Post edited by Your Mom on
  • So, if I found a series of photographs where the facial expressions of a chimp and Obama were similar you would find it humorous and not racist?
    What the hell? Did you understand and comprehend what you read? To answer your question, no, I would not find it humorous to see a bunch of images of Obama with images of chimps making similar facial expressions next to them. Because there's no joke there! Are you truly that ignorant as you think you are? Truly that oblivious? Come on, you have gray matter in your head, use more of it. You only need a chimp's amount of gray matter to be able to eat, breathe and poop. You have more than that.
  • Relevant
  • So, if I found a series of photographs where the facial expressions of a chimp and Obama were similar you would find it humorous and not racist?
    What the hell? Did you understand and comprehend what you read? To answer your question, no, I would not find it humorous to see a bunch of images of Obama with images of chimps making similar facial expressions next to them. Because there's no joke there! Are you truly that ignorant as you think you are? Truly that oblivious? Come on, you have gray matter in your head, use more of it. You only need a chimp's amount of gray matter to be able to eat, breathe and poop. You have more than that.
    Cremlian and your mom had the correct answer. Using chimps/monkeys/etc would be racial due to past usage of monkeys to push the idea that blacks are inferior.

    Would you find it as humorous if the animals used in the (Obama comparison) pictures were not monkeys/chimps/etc but some other animal associated with stupidity or vapidity?
  • edited May 2008
    So, if I found a series of photographs where the facial expressions of a chimp and Obama were similar you would find it humorous and not racist?
    What the hell? Did you understand and comprehend what you read? To answer your question, no, I would not find it humorous to see a bunch of images of Obama with images of chimps making similar facial expressions next to them. Because there's no joke there! Are you truly that ignorant as you think you are? Truly that oblivious? Come on, you have gray matter in your head, use more of it. You only need a chimp's amount of gray matter to be able to eat, breathe and poop. You have more than that.
    Steve, let me explain the humor of the Bush-Chimp comparisons, since you seem to have missed that bus.

    1. Actual side-by-side comparison is but a small part of the humor. It is funny that he tends to make a lot of exaggerated faces. Ha ha. Moving on.
    2. Bush does not believe in evolution. The one thing that minimizes the direct comparison humor is that we are genetically not all that far from chimpanzees. The closest genetic relative is presumed to be the bonobo (pan paniscus); bonobos are represented in that comparison picture. As myself points out above, the biggest issue of the "monkey" comparison is that the generally monkeys are not considered at the intellectual level of humans. The school of thought of the un-washed masses is that this is because monkeys are stupid and primitive. The actual conclusion is more along the lines of a phylogeny branching resulting from pressures that forced proto-humans to increase cranial capacity and grey matter in order to better compete in the wild, the details of which are of great debate in the anthropolgical and evolutionary communities.

    I will also point out that Bush is not considered to be all that smart. Initially, it could be argued that the quantity of his content is far greater than any of his predecessors thanks to the internet. His actions (and arguably his speeches) have not been the equal of many (if not most) of his predecessors. The problem with the Obama comparison is that he is at a very different intelligence level than Bush.

    Also: Andrew's video is full of win.
    Post edited by Your Mom on
  • OK, the Bush is dumber than a monkey is old news. Here are a few of the ideas that are floating around the Internet concerning Obama. I'll list them and then describe photo comparisons for you to think on.

    1) Obama as a Messiah - People faint at Obama rallies and many of his followers are painted as following him due to blind faith.

    photo comparison:

    a) Obama compared to a lemming
    b) Obama as head lemming with the crowd depicted as more lemmings
    c) Obama compared to Jesus/Moses/Muhammad
    d) Obama compared to Jerry Falwel or any other discredited "faith healer" known to have people faint in his presence

    2) Obama has big ears - Early on the media was told not to talk about his ears because he was self-conscious about them

    photo comparison:

    a) Obama compared to elephants
    b) Obama compared to Dumbo

    3) You can not criticize Obama without being branded mean spirited or racist - This is not Obama's fault but the fault of his supporters. Too many of them are quick to jump on the person asking the question. A good example is when North Carolina GOP ran some ads about Obama and Rev. Wright. McCain jumped on the "racist/inappropriate" bandwagon yet, when Obama was asked he said the commercials were legitimate.

    photo comparison:

    a) Obama as pope and supporters depicted as jack-boot security thugs
    b) Compare it to John Kerry's famous "don't taze me bro" incident.
  • I think it's a bigger question. Can you (in a "media" or "society" sorta way) be racist towards a white person? Or is racism reserved only for non-whites? Reason I ask is from what I can tell from the media and other society viewpoints that have been presented to me over my lifetime, only caucasian people are racists, everyone else has a "legitimate" reason to behave or act that way due to history or society values. Any questioning of a racists viewpoint from a non-caucasian, immediately is rebuffed that they themselves are racist for thinking that.

    This is just my opinion, but I think something worth thinking about.
  • I suppose the real question to ask might be one of when does a minority group reach a point where it no longer receives special treatment to offset the wrongs done to it in the past?
  • I suppose the real question to ask might be one of when does a minority group reach a point where it no longer receives special treatment to offset the wrongs done to it in the past?
    Care to go into detail about this special treatment? I know you do.
  • I suppose the real question to ask might be one of when does a minority group reach a point where it no longer receives special treatment to offset the wrongs done to it in the past?
    Care to go into detail about this special treatment? I know you do.
    OK -> Affirmative Action.

    When does Affirmative Action come to an end? At what point do we say, "all past injustices have been corrected and the playing field is now level."
  • OK -> Affirmative Action.

    When does Affirmative Action come to an end? At what point do we say, "all past injustices have been corrected and the playing field is now level."
    Judging from the fact I still hear people saying "I'll never vote for a Black guy" probably still have a ways to go.
  • When does Affirmative Action come to an end? At what point do we say, "all past injustices have been corrected and the playing field is now level."
    Probably when the playing field is level.
  • edited May 2008
    When does Affirmative Action come to an end? At what point do we say, "all past injustices have been corrected and the playing field is now level."
    Probably when the playing field is level.
    How would you define that? What metric would you use?

    Even if Obama were to be elected president that would not mean and end to Affirmative Action as he is just one man and not indicative of all blacks in America. You can't say, "we have a black president, therefore Affirmative Action is no longer needed."

    In fact, when you get right down to it, there is no way to end Affirmative Action because there is no hard goal. The program is designed to correct for past and present discrimination. Even if you get rid of the present discrimination you can never get rid of the past discrimination so how do you know when Affirmative Action has run its course and is no longer needed?

    You can't exactly use quotas as a goal or population percentages because of race A is 10% of the population and race B is 90% of the population it would be unfair to race B to allow Race A to have more than 10% of any job (or whatever) as then they would be unfairly represented in the work force. In one group is only 10% of the population why should they be allowed to have more than 10% of anything?

    Has anyone ever heard of Starrett City in New York? Before being sued by the NAACP in 1978 they tried to create an integrated housing project. They figured the best mix for a neighborhood was 64% white, 22% black and 8% Hispanic (This is New York city in the 70's). They based this on Thomas Schelling's theory of neighborhood segregation. The short and sweet of his research is that neighborhoods reach a tipping point between whites and non-whites. If you can keep the neighborhood under this tipping point everything stays prosperous, once you go past it you have "white flight" and the neighborhood can fall apart. Personally I think the idea that if there are two many blacks in a neighborhood it's going to fall apart is a bit on the racist side but I didn't do the research and this research was done in the 1970's.

    After the city busted up Starrett City for being in violation of the Fair Housing Act the New York Times interviewed many of the residents. The common view put forth by the residents was one of, "what is the problem? Look how integrated we are. Why does the city want to bust us up? We may not like all of our neighbors but where else has such racial integration been achieved?"

    The management of Starrett City tried integration, and it worked. So why did the NAACP sue? Because it was not a quota system as we know it (10% or more) but a straight defacto numbers system. If a white tenant left only a white tenant could rent that apartment. The waiting list for non-whites was extremely long. Even though the management of Starrett City had the best of intentions what they did was against the law.

    So, How do we know when the past injustices have been paid for and the failure of someone is entirely their own fault and not the fault of prior racism?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited May 2008
    Conservatives in Georgia don't get it either. Read the article to get verification regarding why it's bad to compare AFrican-Americans to monkeys. Steve, once again in this thread you demonstrate the type of cluelessness that makes me wish you would just stick to playing with your poke-balls.

    BTW, this article does a good job of listing the difference between Bush/McCain and Obama:
    - Bush & McCain both come from families of power
    - Bush & McCain both were "partying" youths
    - Bush & McCain both were low performing students
    - Bush & McCain both had powerful fathers and grandfathers
    - Bush & McCain both went to excellent schools because of their families
    - Bush & McCain both pursued the careers of their fathers and grandfathers
    - Bush & McCain both were given jobs through their families
    - Bush & McCain both are sarcastic
    - Bush & McCain both relish power
    - Bush & McCain both like to dominate
    - Bush & McCain both are quick to anger
    - Bush & McCain both make reckless statements-"Bomb Iran"/"Bring It On"
    - Bush & McCain both have dominant mothers
    - Bush & McCain both are ruthless competitors
    - Bush & McCain both want to win at all costs
    - Bush & McCain both refuse to negotiate
    - Bush & McCain both want to attack Iran which can cause the Third World War

    Now compare Bush & McCain to Obama:

    - Obama came from humble beginnings
    - Obama barely knew his father
    - Obama went to high school on scholarship and loans
    - Obama admitted "partying" as a youth
    - Obama became an stellar student
    - Obama went to University NOT because of his family
    - Obama went to the top of his class
    - Obama got jobs on his own merit
    - Obama worked at the community level
    - Obama struggled with student debt
    - Obama married a woman of humble means
    - Obama was elected to office without family help
    - Obama is measured and steady
    - Obama is not quick to anger
    - Obama believes in negotiation
    - Obama wants to preserve the peace
    - Obama believes in war as a LAST resort
    - Obama is an adult
    Post edited by HungryJoe on

  • Obviously, anyone reading this piece can fault me on the subjective nature of my comparisons.
    -- from same article as list.

    Joe, we already established why the monkey comparison is wrong, did you read the thread or did you just want to take the time to post a personal attack on me?
    Steve, once again in this thread you demonstrate the type of cluelessness that makes me wish you would just stick to playing with your poke-balls.
    Do you just have a problem with open discussion?
  • edited May 2008
    Do you just have a problem with open discussion?
    What you do is not open discussion. You simply put on a public display of your ignorance and cluelessness in an attempt to attract attention. What you do IMPEDES open discussion.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Do you just have a problem with open discussion?
    What you do is not open discussion. You simply put on a public display of your ignorance and cluelessness in an attempt to attract attention. What you do IMPEDES open discussion.
    I impede discussion? When have I told someone to just shut-up and go away?

    As a former teacher I expect more from you. You of all people should know that you get further in a discussion by explaining rather than by attacking.

    Do you do the same thing in the courtroom? Do you denigrate the jury or inform the jury?

    If you see ignorance do you take the time to correct it or do you just insult the person?

    I've admitted my ignorance's and posted questions for the purpose of getting rid of my ignorance. Think back to the great debate on the speed of light. When the ignorance of a member in the discussion became apparent your answer (typical I'm smarter than you Joe) was to tell the member to "look at the math" even though it was readily apparent that "looking at the math" was not a realistic option. It was not until Starfox took the time (only a few sentences) to explain the Lorentz transformation that the discussion was able to get back on track with the ignorant now better informed.

    Yes Joe, I know my ignorance's, I'm aware of them and I actively try to fix them. The haughty person here is you. Rather than take a moment to explain things you act like the less informed are hardly worthy of a moment of your attention and should be degraded right out of the argument if not actively destroyed.

    So no Joe, I don't impede discussion I foment it.
  • So no Joe, I don't impede discussion I foment it.
    Lately, you've mainly been fomenting discussion about how stupid and clueless you are.
  • So no Joe, I don't impede discussion I foment it.
    Lately, you've mainly been fomenting discussion about how stupid and clueless you are.
    So, if someone came up to you and said, "hey Joe, I don't understand this. Here are my views, please tell me where I am wrong." You would attack them for being ignorant and walk away, all the while yelling, "ignoramus over here! come see the ignoramus!!!"

    Did it ever occur to you that I am bringing up these topics to address my own lack of understanding of them and hopefully become a more informed person?
  • edited May 2008
    Did it ever occur to you that I am bringing up these topics to address my own lack of understanding of them and hopefully become a more informed person?
    No, because you never say that. You always stake out some weird position and then restate it over and over again. You used the relativity example. Read that thread again. See how I told you exactly what to do. Also, notice how you didn't just read what I wrote. You just said over and over something along the lines of, "We can't know what happens because the math breaks down". If you ever said, "I don't understand", you must have posted it on an altogether different message board because what I've mostly heard from you is "Your article is wrong", "Don't you understand supply and demand?", and the like.

    Now, in the interests of quelling the flames, if you have anything else to say to me on this topic, please just whisper to me or email me or IM me or something. Jesus.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited May 2008
    If we lived in a social vacuum, then the comparison of Obama to a chimp would be fine. Unfortunately, we do not. When one calls Bush a chimp, one is simply saying he is stupid and childish. To compare Obama to a chimp would carry a very different connotation due to the use of racial slurs against black people that define them as primates, implying that they ARE animals/creatures of a secondary stature to other "white" humans, not merely that they are LIKE animals or stupid.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited May 2008
    Well, black people ARE primates.

    Gah. Sadly I have to edit this, because I'm going to sleep and I didn't want to leave this for too long.
    I say so because all humans are apes, which are primates, which are animals.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
Sign In or Register to comment.