# Barack Obama



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

Even if I am not American, this man and his message reached me.
As a furry, human, artist and politically active person I saw in Barak a chance for all the world, not only amrica, to improve itself and its views of self as others as a part of community.

Barack speaks of _united_ States. But behind his words I see a hope of united world. Not under their codes of conduct and morals, but something more common and shared, wish for peaceful and civilized means of interaction. Instead of bickering over the way of how things should be done and who should be heard, would it be more fruitful to focus on the endresults of functional and more supple state of being where issues and flaws are solved with not arms and violence but common effort and balancing the funds applied to these issues more fairly instead of superabundance of one more important issues like security of nation at the expense of lesser issues like common healthcare.

I think with Barack Obama reflecting positively to his nation, should also the tolerance of differing lifestyles increase and fursecution for example would decrease and prejudice would be easier to defeat with common sense.

Anyhow, I think There has not been better presidential candidate for USA in decades.
Your opinion is welcome, and also your estimate of the election and its results, I know there are people that are more informed of this than I am, this here is my view of the situation that interests me.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

WTF?

...no really, WTF?

Barack Obama isn't going to stop "fursecution". WTF LOL.

Having a Liberal and tolerant president is not going to force people to change their opinions and the way they feel about alternative lifestyles. In fact, doing such a thing is actually counterintuitive to true Liberal thought; forcing someone to accept everyone is being intolerant of someone's lack of acceptance.

Unless you want to end up like the Netherlands, where everyone acted like they were cool with minority groups until someone ran on an anti-minority platform, which opened up a gigantic can of worms...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 16, 2007)

The man has barely said anything but I guess that's part of his appeal. I don't hate him or anything but seriously, fursecution? Where does this relate?


----------



## Litre (Feb 16, 2007)

oh god here we go AGAIN.


----------



## Celirya (Feb 16, 2007)

Stopping fursecution? Through a presidential bid unrelated to the furry fandom at all? This is news to me! Dude now entirely has my support! </sarcasm>

I like Obama and everything, but he's not stopping fursecution. It won't stop at all as long as someone believes that it exists. After all, it's not your love of fur that they're 'persecuting' (for the most part, certain internet toughguys excepted). It's how you act with that love. But that's another topic entirely... *wanders off humming*

PS: Also, most people are intolerant because they are, and they pass that on, and because of that it'll never really end


----------



## facek (Feb 16, 2007)

I am proud that you think Obama would not only change Amrica, but the world.

Maybe when he's elected Amrica will be a great country once again.

GOD BLESS AMRICA!


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 16, 2007)

Please, furry fandom, don't ruin Barack Obama for me by trying to show how closely you align with the guy's politics.  You've already ruined ancient egypt, penn and teller, and robin hood.  Just.... just stop.


----------



## sunshyne (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm a hardcore Obama supporter but, like everybody else, I don't think him getting elected is going to make the public feel any different about the furry life... And when you think about it, the worst we get is news stories portraying us in a negative light, and peope coming on our sites to call us freaks. We're not REALLY persecuted, like some sectors of our society (among them the gays, the poor, minorities, etc) and I think he CAN help change that.

Ironically, I was already working on a reference sheet I plan on uploading this weekend, in which my character's wearing an Obama campaign t-shirt


----------



## Aikon (Feb 16, 2007)

Thanks for the laugh, you had me going there for a second.  Phew!


----------



## Surgat (Feb 16, 2007)




----------



## sunshyne (Feb 16, 2007)

Surgat said:
			
		

>



THAT is the greatest thing I have ever seen.

...and everyone ragging on acron needs to cut it out. Sure it's a little idealistic to think Obama being president is going to make furdom suddenly be a mainstream accepted thing, but he's definitely the most socially liberal of the front-running candidates.


----------



## Celirya (Feb 16, 2007)

Then again with Obama's Web 2.0 campaign, I wouldn't be too surprised if the next poster is him.


----------



## verix (Feb 16, 2007)

Celirya said:
			
		

> Then again with Obama's Web 2.0 campaign, I wouldn't be too surprised if the next poster is him.


Do you see the word "blog" anywhere? 'cause I sure don't.


----------



## blueroo (Feb 16, 2007)

Ok, you got me. I am Barack Obama.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 16, 2007)

no.  _I_ am Batman!


----------



## quark (Feb 16, 2007)

_I_ am Spartacus!


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

Well here we go with civilized comments again 

I never said Barack could stop it, mut likely result will be it reducing instead of being the cool thing to do as it seems to be the case now.
And you were the ones who made it in your own heads sound like fursecution will stop miraculously, but to some people, even small improvement is improvement.
Maybe that's why liars win American elections usually, they promise miracles you want to hear. The fact Obama hasn't said "anything" is because he doesn't make empty promises but speaks of realistic goals withing 4 year campaign.

But as civilized forumites, that you seem to be, /sarcasm I wouldn't go throwing around assumptions are inevidable truths.

I said "fursecution for example would decrease and prejudice would be easier to defeat with common sense." and with that I of course referred to the more reasonable politics of Obama.


> Then again with Obama's Web 2.0 campaign, I wouldn't be too surprised if the next poster is him.


And who said This isn't Obama blowing his own horn here  
But seriously, Post without "WTF" and "LOL" is always sure "win" What comes to the credibility of the poster. But since 4Chan is meme in itself now I guess it can't be helped.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 16, 2007)

He can't reduce it either.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

A president, no matter what he does, cannot change the thoughts and feelings of people towards other groups of people (save, perhaps, causing foreigners to hate Americans, but they do that anyway). By your logic, if a racist were to be elected president, suddenly more people would become racist, even if it was "just a little".


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

quark said:
			
		

> _I_ am Spartacus!



I am Sportacus!


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> A president, no matter what he does, cannot change the thoughts and feelings of people towards other groups of people (save, perhaps, causing foreigners to hate Americans, but they do that anyway). By your logic, if a racist were to be elected president, suddenly more people would become racist, even if it was "just a little".



Yes, you got it right!

I got gay because my president is lesbian!


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

Sigh.

You're only making an ass of yourself by saying that. You're proving the exact same point I was making, and that is: Barack Obama is not going to make the world more tolerant.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 16, 2007)

I have heard that politicians like Barak Obama will do anything in order to avoid saying or promising anything concrete. Pious mouthings and chin stroking are the order of the day.

Although he does indulge in the tradional false dilemma of economic nationalism or embracing globalisation and the free market.


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> I have heard that politicians like Barak Obama will do anything in order to avoid saying or promising anything concrete. Pious mouthings and chin stroking are the order of the day.
> 
> Although he does indulge in the tradional false dilemma of economic nationalism or embracing globalisation and the free market.



And then here we have a fine example of civilized way to express opposing opinion.   Thank you for your contribution ^_^ 

Have you been to Baracks campaign website recently?  Maybe he's making those concrete promises you want there now?
The race is just starting, give the man time to speak.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 16, 2007)

Dave:  Shoulda heard his bid for presidency (last, what was it, saturday?) when he said he was going to officially enter the race.  He called for a lot of things -- while they may not technically have been promises, I liked what I was hearing in terms of progressive thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3sHwp_AVWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_xPSqhxgyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr2SY2N2kpw


Well, that was hard to find.  If you didn't see it live, now you can see it on the internet.  This was the "big announcement"  :v


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Dave:  Shoulda heard his bid for presidency (last, what was it, saturday?) when he said he was going to officially enter the race.  He called for a lot of things -- while they may not technically have been promises, I liked what I was hearing in terms of progressive thinking.



I liked that too. Though had it with a bit of delay as I live in Finland.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

Hey Acorndeer, why don't you run for president? You seem to have perfected the skills of side-talking and avoiding the issue.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 16, 2007)

I detect someone is the discussion equivalent of Gerrymandering


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 16, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Hey Acorndeer, why don't you run for president? You seem to have perfected the skills of side-talking and avoiding the issue.



And what issue am I avoiding?  Did I raise any other issues than "What's your opinion about this?" or did I say anything that led you believe that I will analyze and provide answers to anything?


----------



## Xax (Feb 16, 2007)

Okay.


----------



## soundhound (Feb 17, 2007)

this is the most hilarious post in the history of ever


----------



## sunshyne (Feb 17, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Hey Acorndeer, why don't you run for president? You seem to have perfected the skills of side-talking and avoiding the issue.



No, THAT wasn't out of line or anything... 

why don't YOU contribute something intelligent AND pertinent?? Nobody is saying the things you claim them to... quit overreacting.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 17, 2007)

Hey, dude. I contributed my part and the only response I got was a side-spoken comment about how my post (and others) were "uncivilized" simply because he didn't like what I said. After he finally clarified his point to someone else, I responded again with a statement pointing out his faulty logic, and he came back with a snarky response that I think was supposed to mock me but instead only succeeded in further supporting my point. When I mentioned that, he came back again with yet another comment-to-someone-else about how my posts were "uncivilized". His last response to me is grammatically fucky and I still don't know what exactly he was trying to say.

I'm not overreacting, I'm telling him he's wrong. :|


----------



## WHPellic (Feb 17, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> Ok, you got me. I am Barack Obama.



No, you are Blueroo, Destroyer of Furry Conventions. :wink:


----------



## blueroo (Feb 17, 2007)

WHPellic said:
			
		

> blueroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am known by many names, the least of these being "".


----------



## NightfallGemini (Feb 17, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Please, furry fandom, don't ruin Barack Obama for me by trying to show how closely you align with the guy's politics.  You've already ruined ancient egypt, penn and teller, and robin hood.  Just.... just stop.



you're giving them ideas!!! D8<


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 17, 2007)

sunshyne said:
			
		

> I'm a hardcore Obama supporter but, like everybody else, I don't think him getting elected is going to make the public feel any different about the furry life... And when you think about it, the worst we get is news stories portraying us in a negative light, and peope coming on our sites to call us freaks. We're not REALLY persecuted, like some sectors of our society (among them the gays, the poor, minorities, etc) and I think he CAN help change that.
> 
> Ironically, I was already working on a reference sheet I plan on uploading this weekend, in which my character's wearing an Obama campaign t-shirt



You make a good point there  We are not really persecuted, but still, if minorities meet more tolerance, get better education and can afford a better style of life, they are less likely trying to find other minorities to attack to pull the "fire" elsewhere.
And Obama can change situation to better for gays, and the poor, and by so helping also furries, because some of us are people from those minorities too. 



			
				Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Hey, dude. I contributed my part and the only response I got was a side-spoken comment about how my post (and others) were "uncivilized" simply because he didn't like what I said. After he finally clarified his point to someone else, I responded again with a statement pointing out his faulty logic, and he came back with a snarky response that I think was supposed to mock me but instead only succeeded in further supporting my point. When I mentioned that, he came back again with yet another comment-to-someone-else about how my posts were "uncivilized". His last response to me is grammatically fucky and I still don't know what exactly he was trying to say.
> 
> I'm not overreacting, I'm telling him he's wrong. :|



And I didn't say I am *right* about anything, but that what I said is how I see it 
And by the time our president got elected first time, she's accused of lesbianity (eventhough she's hetero), I came out of the closet.

Now, all the snarly you see in my comments is just your own inability to do backround research. And uncivilized is to attack a poster who doesn't attack you, and even less convincing is to use "LOLWTF UR STUPID" remarks if you want to be taken seriously yourself.
All that was taken by offence was in your head, starting from original post in which case you threw poo to begin with 

I am not bickering, I tried to joke it off but clearly you lack the sense of humor.

Your view I accept, You don't think Obama could anyway positively reflect to any part of the society, I feel differently, it is my right to feel so.
Unlike congress, this thread was supposen to be a place to share opinions, not to bash others opinions. That way actually contributing to conversation instead of escalating it to an argument.


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 17, 2007)

soundhound said:
			
		

> this is the most hilarious post in the history of ever



Thank you   Glad you're having as much fun as I am :wink:


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 17, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> WHPellic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but do they call you Tim?


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 17, 2007)

Acorndeer said:
			
		

> You make a good point there  We are not really persecuted, but still, if minorities meet more tolerance, get better education and can afford a better style of life, they are less likely trying to find other minorities to attack to pull the "fire" elsewhere.
> And Obama can change situation to better for gays, and the poor, and by so helping also furries, because some of us are people from those minorities too.



Your not persecuted at all. Stop with this idiotic crap. Minorities are so glamorzied and tolerated to the point where low points of their cultures are glamored and used to make money hand over fist, INS is always lambasted when they raid some meat plant as the devil and for the last five years, i've seen the rapid encrouchment of Spanish on my packages. Furry is not a freaking minority. Furry is NOT in need of the damned NAACP to march on DC and sing "We shall overcome." while Jessie threatens boycotts on various products and places they don't open up their checkbook. It's not a lifestyle and if you teach it like such, your not only doing it wrong but any viewpoint you may have is automaticaly declared null and void because retards aren't allowed to vote.

Obama change what? I can take care of things for gays right now. It's called "Keep your affection to your own homes or in places that cowtow to you." because the nasty breeders will always outnumber you and most of them don't want to see you flame and suck face in public. Deal with it. That's right. Deal with it. Gay people, your struggles are not the same as black people's were nor will they ever be. Your cries for adoption of children and wanting legal props for slipping a ring on your SO's finger pale compared to what blacks faced.
Remember that.

Poor? Go to school. Try working more the 40 hours a week. Save up your money and move to a new city where the jobs are better paying. Stop paying for furcons, art and sextoys on credit cards, ditto for your entertainment. Save your money. Eat cheaper. Get rid of shit you don't need (IE-Your internet unless your taking classes on it.) and put the money into investments. Take that burger flipping job, that ditch digging job or that nasty overnight stock job. Don't wait for Obama to create yet one more twisted welfare program for you to leech money from, sit around and cry about how life isn't fair. Get out and go bust your ass for a year or two, use the above tips and then see what you've got then.

Obama if he had any idea of what furry was would back away as quickly as possable, so would the rest of the DNC. Don't think laws, programs and other goverment funded lulz is going to change things to where a hobby will become a socialy accepted lifestyle.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 17, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> words


quoted for truth


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 17, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> the nasty breeders will always outnumber you and most of them don't want to see you flame and suck face in public. Deal with it. That's right. Deal with it.



You don't speak for all "breeders", thus what you really mean is you don't want to see gay people sharing affection in public. 

Might I enquire, does that attitude apply to hetrosexual displays of affection or lesbians or is it only gay males? 



> Gay people, your struggles are not the same as black people's were nor will they ever be. Your cries for adoption of children and wanting legal props for slipping a ring on your SO's finger pale compared to what blacks faced.
> Remember that.



Do you know where the pink triangle symbol came from?

Concentration camps.

Did you know that at least 15,000 gay men perished in the holocaust? Furthermore, they were singled out for the harshest treatment in the camps. 

There is a famous illustration from the middle ages depicting people being burnt at the stake for the crime of sodomy.

I think it would be a wicked thing for people to start playing the numbers game and declare that some group suffered more than another because more people died or whatever.

However, I do think it is the hight of ignorence and disrespect to declare that the suffering and deaths of thousands of LGBT people who have been persecuted throughout human history is "not the same" compared to the suffering of another group of people.Â Â LGBT people have been persecuted and killed throughout human history and that persecution happens today in many countries all around the world.

An interesting thing: some people in the american anti-slavery movement were opposed to women haveing the right to vote. Thus, I suppose it is not so strange that some people who support the right of black people not to be discriminated against, should not support the right of gay people not to be discriminated against.


----------



## Litre (Feb 17, 2007)

It's safe to say that while that's saddening, that was part of a wider scope of killings, and the fact it was happening in another part of the world, by a totally different cause.

This is society not adjusting yet to a "norm" being broken, not the will of an angsty dictator who didn't get into art school.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 17, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> the nasty breeders will always outnumber you and most of them don't want to see you flame and suck face in public. Deal with it. That's right. Deal with it.





			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> You don't speak for all "breeders", thus what you really mean is you don't want to see gay people sharing affection in public.
> 
> Might I enquire, does that attitude apply to hetrosexual displays of affection or lesbians or is it only gay males?



It really applies to both. And I bi, but I twist in my negro skin every time gay folks cry over people making faces when they nibble on each other's ears. Yes it would also apply to lesbians too.



			
				Foxstar said:
			
		

> Gay people, your struggles are not the same as black people's were nor will they ever be. Your cries for adoption of children and wanting legal props for slipping a ring on your SO's finger pale compared to what blacks faced. Remember that.







			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Do you know where the pink triangle symbol came from?
> 
> Concentration camps.
> 
> Did you know that at least 15,000 gay men perished in the holocaust? Furthermore, they were singled out for the harshest treatment in the camps.



Duh. What of it? The nazis killed everyone remember? Hitler was many, many things, but he had people from all walks of life murdered in the same ways.




			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> There is a famous illustration from the middle ages depicting people being burnt at the stake for the crime of sodomy.
> 
> I think it would be a wicked thing for people to start playing the numbers game and declare that some group suffered more than another because more people died or whatever.



Yet you just played a round of that very same game by pointing out what the nazi's did. You don't see me dragging out the numbers of black people who died via slavery/whatnot so why are you trying to trot that pony around the yard? Shall I point out that one can not stop being black but one can be gay and people not find out for years, if ever? Not...the...same..thing. Sorry.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 17, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> It really applies to both. And I bi, but I twist in my negro skin every time gay folks cry over people making faces when they nibble on each other's ears. Yes it would also apply to lesbians too.



So it's an issue of you not liking what you consider to be excessive displays of affection in public then. 



			
				Foxstar said:
			
		

> Duh. What of it? The nazis killed everyone remember? Hitler was many, many things, but he had people from all walks of life murdered in the same ways.
> ...
> Yet you just played a round of that very same game by pointing out what the nazi's did.
> ...
> Shall I point out that one can not stop being black but one can be gay and people not find out for years, if ever? Not...the...same..thing. Sorry.



The what of it is that LGBT people have suffered for being what they are, just as people have suffered for the colour of their skin. I mentioned the deaths in the concentration camps etc as a reminder that LGBT people have suffered organised and deliberate persecution as a matter of policy, just as have black people. Therefore to declare that the struggle of the LGBT people for civil rights "is not the same thing" as black people struggling for civil rights is an ignorent and insulting thing to say in my opinion.

In relation to your second point, LGBT people can pretend to be other than what they are, but this literally destroys lives. The suicide rate amongst LGBT people is significently higher than average in Britain for example and it is belived that people saying in the closet etc, plays it's part. No one should have to deny what they are or be punished for it in my opinion.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 17, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> So it's an issue of you not liking what you consider to be excessive displays of affection in public then.



If you don't think that society as a whole in general is offended by public displays of affection (no matter what gender or sexual orientation) then you are deluded.  It's rude.



> The what of it is that LGBT people have suffered for being what they are, just as people have suffered for the colour of their skin. I mentioned the deaths in the concentration camps etc as a reminder that LGBT people have suffered organised and deliberate persecution as a matter of policy, just as have black people. Therefore to declare that the struggle of the LGBT people for civil rights "is not the same thing" as black people struggling for civil rights is an ignorent and insulting thing to say in my opinion.



Maybe it's insulting to you, but you're wrongfully assuming and believing that all LGBT people "are" that way (that is, "born" that way) vs. those who chose to be that way.  Once again denying there are LGBT people who chose to be that way out of some circumstance in their life / development would be an absurd claim to make.  Those who chose their way of life (no matter what the circumstances) cannot be compared to those who have no other choice but to be what they are.



> In relation to your second point, LGBT people can pretend to be other than what they are, but this literally destroys lives. The suicide rate amongst LGBT people is significently higher than average in Britain for example and it is belived that people saying in the closet etc, plays it's part. No one should have to deny what they are or be punished for it in my opinion.



I know a lot of LGBT people who can live perfectly normal lives without having to scream out to the world their sexuality, as well as a lot of normal people.  I wonder how many studies have done over straight people who committed suicide because they're not allowed to express their sexuality?  (Yes, in a conservative area this is common.)  I'm guessing there's a hell of a lot more of those -- but that's to be expected, because homosexuals only make up 2-10% of the population.  And yet, the notion is still absurd because we find such discretion to be acceptable in our society (except the most extreme militant liberal thinkers who believe sex in general should be exposed to everyone whether they like it or not -- conservative people, children, the ignorant, etc).


----------



## blueroo (Feb 17, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> blueroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 17, 2007)

I'm just going to make my point one more time:

A single person cannot make the world more tolerant. Tolerance/racism/oppression/persecution is not an issue that can be resolved through logic because at its core it's an emotional concern on the part of the "bigot", and you can't dictate how other people should feel. Changing their thinking will not change how *most people* feel, and anyone who _is_ swayed as such was either in denial about their feelings or was going to come to them eventually anyway.

And since someone brought up the fact that gay suicide rates are higher than average (in a single country?), what about the male versus female suicide rates? Women are three times more likely to try, but men are four times more likely to succeed. Does that mean women are more oppressed, but men are more efficient? (as a female who has been forced to read all kinds of crap about how women are oppressed, I don't believe it.)

How many of those suicidal homosexuals were teenagers? They're already at higher risk anyway. How many of them identified as homosexual at the time of the suicide, but would have "grown out of it"* when they got older had they survived? How many of them were elderly, as they seem to have higher rates than teenagers?

* - I'm not saying you can "grow out of" true homosexuality, I'm saying teenagers experiment and get confused.

And what the hell does this have to do with anything in the first place?


----------



## Rot-Fuchs (Feb 17, 2007)

this is why i hate politics...


----------



## Surgat (Feb 17, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Do you know where the pink triangle symbol came from?
> 
> Concentration camps.
> 
> ...



You can also add the fact that it used to be listed as a mental illness in the DSM, and a criminal offense. Case in point: Alan turing.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing#Prosecution_for_homosexual_acts_and_Turing.27s_death



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Maybe it's insulting to you, but you're wrongfully assuming and believing that all LGBT people "are" that way (that is, "born" that way) vs. those who chose to be that way.  Once again denying there are LGBT people who chose to be that way out of some circumstance in their life / development would be an absurd claim to make.  Those who chose their way of life (no matter what the circumstances) cannot be compared to those who have no other choice but to be what they are.


There's no scientific evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice; the American Psychological Association doesn't think it's a choice either: 
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice 
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses


			
				APA said:
			
		

> *Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?*
> 
> No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.






			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> I know a lot of LGBT people who can live perfectly normal lives without having to scream out to the world their sexuality, as well as a lot of normal people.  I wonder how many studies have done over straight people who committed suicide because they're not allowed to express their sexuality?  (Yes, in a conservative area this is common.)  I'm guessing there's a hell of a lot more of those -- but that's to be expected, because homosexuals only make up 2-10% of the population.  And yet, the notion is still absurd because we find such discretion to be acceptable in our society (except the most extreme militant liberal thinkers who believe sex in general should be exposed to everyone whether they like it or not -- conservative people, children, the ignorant, etc).



Merely being "out of the closet" is not the same as "screaming out to the world about [one's] sexuality." 

I want to see some evidence for this claim of yours, too: 





> I wonder how many studies have done over straight people who committed suicide because they're not allowed to express their sexuality?  (Yes, in a conservative area this is common.)"(Yes, in a conservative area this is common.)



How many heterosexuals are beaten or fired just for saying that they're straight? How many heterosexuals are "in the closet" about their orientation, and have to pose as homosexuals or bisexuals for fear of repercussions?


----------



## wut (Feb 17, 2007)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> Shall I point out that one can not stop being black



Michael Jackson

:lol:


----------



## uncia2000 (Feb 17, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> And what the hell does this have to do with anything in the first place?



Good points for discussion on your post, Hanazawa, but an even better question at the end in the _current topic_ context, I guess.

I'm not the only moderator/admin around here, of course. 

d.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 18, 2007)

Who split the thread?  What a crappy place to split it.  They even closed the split -- this thread's already off on a tangent and still is but splitting it at my post implies to me that I can't go down a certain path of conversation, and no explination was given.  

What

the

Hell

Should I just go on talking and pretend like the split never happened?


Edit:  I'm going to risk going against the grain because no one warned me to stop, they just deleted my words from this thread.  Gender orientation is both a scientific/genetic thing you're born with, AND a social construct.  The APA's definition deals only with the science and people try and use it to force it upon the social construct as well.  They are two different things.  That's why I don't agree with the argument -- because it's politically incorrect to go around asserting that someone's not REALLY a homosexual or REALLY a bisexual, or REALLY a heterosexual, simply because that's not their scientifically-associated gender orientation.  If the person chooses to identify themselves as one of those things as a social matter, people tend to only be forgiving of "false" homosexuals, and much less forgiving of people (such as bisexuals) who identify themselves as heterosexual by regular people and real homosexuals alike.  By confusing the science with the social construct, double standards are created.  Yes, some people CHOOSE what they want to be despite their natural gender orientation but then try to use the natural gender orientation argument to confuse this issue -- and the catch 22 is that it's politically incorrect to argue otherwise only if that person CHOSE to be "homosexual" (but isn't by the scientific definition).  

My point here is that such a distinction does exist, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it neither helps to try and use the science as a shield nor to try and ignore the socially-constructed aspect of gender orientation for political purposes.  People should be informed (as you informed me) of both the official scientific opinion and given an explanation to the disparity in society's real-life labeling system, rather than encouraging people to not consider that to some people choice is involved, because currently we can't really criticize those people for muddying up the water and serving as poor examples for helping promote the alternate gender orientation agenda due to their own personal confusion.  

Finally.... If the moderators want to split off the tangent they should do a less shitty job at picking the place where the thread started going off on it.  Otherwise, without a proper explanation, the split made little sense and just seems like "yet another arbitrary decision" which only serves to piss off people who believe in fair and even moderation.


----------



## Xax (Feb 18, 2007)

The habit of naming split thread as "[split] old topic" also does not help. Because hey, considering topics are split (supposedly) for no longer having anything to DO with the original topic... MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST CUT THAT OUT.

ANYWAY.

Presumably the whole "sexual orientation is immutable" in regards to free will is somewhat like, I dunno, hair colour. Not being able to change your hair colour via pure force of will doesn't really limit your free will, there. But hey, if you don't like your hair would could always dye it. mmm, similies.

But I personally think it'd be more like... I guess it's possible that I could decide to start, I don't know, lying and sucking up to people for attention & sycophants, because there's that potential for that in me, but I'm sure not _going_ to because that's abhorrent to my current personality.

But in REALITY it's probably something like "you can be genetically biased towards a certain sexual orientation, but there's a degree of choice and things are probably locked down at a young age".

What? What is this about Barack Obama? STOP BEING OFFTOPIC GUYS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GAYS >:E

*[EDIT]*: oh right, and



			
				Nobuyuki said:
			
		

> My point here is that such a distinction does exist, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it neither helps to try and use the science as a shield nor to try and ignore the socially-constructed aspect of gender orientation for political purposes.  People should be informed (as you informed me) of both the official scientific opinion and given an explanation to the disparity in society's real-life labeling system, rather than encouraging people to not consider that to some people choice is involved, because currently we can't really criticize those people for muddying up the water and serving as poor examples for helping promote the alternate gender orientation agenda due to their own personal confusion.



Sure, if you're going by the theory that sexual orientation is an inherent trait as opposed to a hobby (or whatever), then there would be some difference between the former and the latter. But I think it's silly to call that difference, like, "real" vs "confused" or whatever. There are some people who are predisposed towards, I dunno, being able to program, or draw, or whatever. That doesn't mean the people who, uh, earned those skills (not exactly a perfect analouge to GAYS but whatever) as opposed to having the inborn traits are fake or confused.

...although clearly there is some kind of "college lesbian" effect in which people who are totally uninterested in a certain behavour (for example, gay sex) nevertheless fake interest in that because attention whore/peer pressure/whatever else. But those people are stupid and should be ignored.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 18, 2007)

They can't be ignored cause like I said they attach theirselves to key issues and make themselves big ad hominem targets for every person with a conflicting opinion :B

"oh look, she's only pretending!  Obviously if it's a choice to some people then why try and promote a new paradigm in society?  Assimilate like the rest of us"


Edit:  Oh yeah.  Yeah, it's seriously off-topic, but the split was not only locked (to prevent further discussion?) but also SPLIT AT THE WRONG PLACE -- if it was supposed to split off the tangent... it failed horribly


----------



## Xax (Feb 18, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> They can't be ignored cause like I said they attach theirselves to key issues and make themselves big ad hominem targets for every person with a conflicting opinion :B
> 
> "oh look, she's only pretending!Â Â Obviously if it's a choice to some people then why try and promote a new paradigm in society?Â Â Assimilate like the rest of us"



I'd say the proper response to that would be, um, "that person is a moron and in no way represents the average $subgroup. Also: AD HOMINEM." and if they continue to try to use stupid fallicies, then just declare them a moron too and move on.

(after a certain level there is really no point in continuing discourse with certain people: they will continue using stupid arguments and no logic and they will keep talking and talking and talking and acting like they can change reality by 'winning' an argument. So I just say "Okay!" and leave, because it is, as they say, a WASTE of my TALENTS)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 18, 2007)

Rot-Fuchs said:
			
		

> this is why i hate politics...



Just a moment here, but it is related. EVERYTHING is politics, including how you act on this forum and so forth. The behavior is the same. You work connections and ways to get hits, friends etc. High School also describes it. But this "I hate politics" well guess what about every thread and behavior you commit to in any community is basically politics.

Just because there may not be a government official involved doesn't detract from this argument, because I'm referring to the behavior of the community itself.

This is why Barack Obama being brought in to this ridiculous terminology of "fursecution" is  just stunning. Fursecution isn't a real problem. Only way for change is if people's politics change.


----------



## Kyrre (Feb 18, 2007)

Barack Obama, I know you're reading this... do yourself a favour, stay away from furry issues.  Kenya will keep you from their lions and tigers, and then you'll really be in a bind.  Choose wisely.  Real lions and tigers, or furry lions and tigers..


----------



## darkdoomer (Feb 18, 2007)

what the point between furries and politics already ? 

no,i dont understeand.

for my part, i need to improve my sniper skills for May 7th. ( yes, i live in france. )


----------



## Surgat (Feb 18, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> ...
> Edit:  I'm going to risk going against the grain because no one warned me to stop, they just deleted my words from this thread.  Gender orientation is both a scientific/genetic thing you're born with, AND a social construct.  The APA's definition deals only with the science and people try and use it to force it upon the social construct as well.  They are two different things.  That's why I don't agree with the argument -- because it's politically incorrect to go around asserting that someone's not REALLY a homosexual or REALLY a bisexual, or REALLY a heterosexual, simply because that's not their scientifically-associated gender orientation.  If the person chooses to identify themselves as one of those things as a social matter, people tend to only be forgiving of "false" homosexuals, and much less forgiving of people (such as bisexuals) who identify themselves as heterosexual by regular people and real homosexuals alike.  By confusing the science with the social construct, double standards are created.  Yes, some people CHOOSE what they want to be despite their natural gender orientation but then try to use the natural gender orientation argument to confuse this issue -- and the catch 22 is that it's politically incorrect to argue otherwise only if that person CHOSE to be "homosexual" (but isn't by the scientific definition).
> 
> My point here is that such a distinction does exist, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it neither helps to try and use the science as a shield nor to try and ignore the socially-constructed aspect of gender orientation for political purposes.  People should be informed (as you informed me) of both the official scientific opinion and given an explanation to the disparity in society's real-life labeling system, rather than encouraging people to not consider that to some people choice is involved, because currently we can't really criticize those people for muddying up the water and serving as poor examples for helping promote the alternate gender orientation agenda due to their own personal confusion.



I don't think anyone would disagree that what people identify as/call themselves/think of themselves as is at least partly a matter of choice, or that it can change over time. I don't see why it's relevant. 

Your whole "social construction" argument seems to be a sophisticated sounding way of stating that since people can call themselves any gender orientation they choose, regardless of which gender they are attracted, prefer, or regardless of whether or not they have no preference, then they are responsible for any result of their identification. In other words, because they can re-enter the closet and identify as straight, they choose to be oppressed.



			
				Earlier said:
			
		

> Maybe it's insulting to you, but you're wrongfully assuming and believing that all LGBT people "are" that way (that is, "born" that way) vs. those who chose to be that way.  Once again denying there are LGBT people who chose to be that way out of some circumstance in their life / development would be an absurd claim to make.  Those who chose their way of life (no matter what the circumstances) cannot be compared to those who have no other choice but to be what they are.



This has already been refuted: 


			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> In relation to your second point, LGBT people can pretend to be other than what they are, but this literally destroys lives. The suicide rate amongst LGBT people is significently higher than average in Britain for example and it is belived that people saying in the closet etc, plays it's part. No one should have to deny what they are or be punished for it in my opinion.



You say that saying gender orientation is not a choice, and that saying people can be mistaken about their orientation is "politically incorrect" because people should be able to identify as whatever they want [see: the first two quoted paragraphs]. However, when homophobes demand that everybody identifies as straight it's just fine? It's wrong for people to have to be identified by their gender orientation as recognized by science only, but having to keep their preferences secret for fear of legal and social repercussions isn't really wrong/oppressive?  




			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Finally.... If the moderators want to split off the tangent they should do a less shitty job at picking the place where the thread started going off on it.  Otherwise, without a proper explanation, the split made little sense and just seems like "yet another arbitrary decision" which only serves to piss off people who believe in fair and even moderation.



Agreed. The original topic was kind of silly anyways.


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 18, 2007)

Surgat said:
			
		

> -clipclipclip-
> 
> Agreed. The original topic was kind of silly anyways.



Hmm..  I think it was kinda silly too ^_^ but it was not made to be the groundbreaking political discussion to be rooted in this forums history to begin with.

Now that we're talking about sexual orientation and politics we indeed have lot deeper and more easier to relate issue at our hands.
I am glad how my OP ended up spawning more interesting and fruitful discussion 

And I shall donate to this topic, want it or not XD
My personal experience of sexual orientation is that feelings you have for certain people are there and they are aquired trough either interaction or physical appearance, in ideal cases, both. Not by moral codes and ethich, it is not a choice that you make, nothing you're really born with, morelike it is a natural way to feel for ones who are close to you or in idol position to you.

Admiration, love, respect, lust, trust all those don't happen just by choice and you're not born to feel those for specified people in your life, opinions and feelings change. So may sexual orientation change with time or with the people you come in contact with, for example I didn't know my homosexual side until I met gay people who were kind, smart and also sexually willing, it took me a while to adapt to this situation but i do not regret it any. 

As kid I was kinda girly boy and always been artistic and "emotional" type, I in one of the summercamps at the age of 14 had my first sexual intercourse and it was with male, after that, I lived on many years still as "straight" and thought it was only girls who got my hormones to kick in. But later on my life I came in terms with reality, so was my opinion changed ^^
Now, I may look like butch male, with all the muscle and hair I have, but inside I am still "yender artist"  though now with wisdom of I can take even negative feedback and hard times in civilized manner.

I am known to jump to conclusions, and before giving up on my mind, I must of course defend it until my points are proven wrong.
As is the case with Barack Obama, I like him, I find him a capable leader and very charmant man, I hope he can change some attitudes with his example, bit like Jesus concept did and does to people.

Of course nobody grows a tree out of solid rock, and it takes a fertile ground from a seed of change to sprout. I just like to think that there's fertile ground for that in all of us.


----------



## Litre (Feb 18, 2007)

sexual discussion is...deep?

Also..TMI much?


----------



## foxyfennec (Feb 18, 2007)

The whole concept of "furry" being put out there as an issue, like race and gender, is totally ridiculous.  I have a hard time believing ANYONE running for president would  "think of the furries"


----------



## LTIO-540-D2J (Feb 18, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*

Okay, I agree that Sen. Obama is a nice guy.  I'd even grant that he's articulate.  But I just can't see him as a leader- he's served less than half his term in Congress, and what legislative accomplishments can he point out?  The man is a political cipher.  I can't name anything that he stands _for,_ except 'being nice to everyone'.  I would say that 'being nice' and 'saying nice things that sound good to most people' are not good indicators of leadership- I sort of see an inverse correlation there.  
Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war.  One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious  Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII.  Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.

  Sen. Obama has said very little to indicate to me that he has the sort of will or determination needed to be an effective leader along these lines- his recent comment about 'wasted' lives seems to me to indicate he believes that if something is too hard to do quickly or easily, we should just quit.


----------



## Surgat (Feb 18, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> Okay, I agree that Sen. Obama is a nice guy. *I'd even grant that he's articulate.*  But I just can't see him as a leader- he's served less than half his term in Congress, and what legislative accomplishments can he point out?  The man is a political cipher.  I can't name anything that he stands _for,_ except 'being nice to everyone'.  I would say that 'being nice' and 'saying nice things that sound good to most people' are not good indicators of leadership- I sort of see an inverse correlation there.
> Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war.  One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious  Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII.  Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.
> 
> Sen. Obama has said very little to indicate to me that he has the sort of will or determination needed to be an effective leader along these lines- his recent comment about 'wasted' lives seems to me to indicate he believes that if something is too hard to do quickly or easily, we should just quit.


[_Emphasis mine_.]

You might want to re-word that a little.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 19, 2007)

Surgat said:
			
		

> You say that saying gender orientation is not a choice, and that saying people can be mistaken about their orientation is "politically incorrect" because people should be able to identify as whatever they want [see: the first two quoted paragraphs]. However, when homophobes demand that everybody identifies as straight it's just fine? It's wrong for people to have to be identified by their gender orientation as recognized by science only, but having to keep their preferences secret for fear of legal and social repercussions isn't really wrong/oppressive?



No, when homophobes demand that, it's not just fine.  In fact, it's unreasonable.  That should have been obvious --  I would hope you didn't think I believed that?  To clarify, yes it is wrong for people to be identified by gender orientation strictly on a scientific basis (cause it's insensitive to the social reality on both sides of the issue), but it is also wrong to give out negative social and legal repercussions to someone based on gender orientation -- I never implied otherwise.  I hope you didn't miss my point, though.




			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> Okay, I agree that Sen. Obama is a nice guy.  I'd even grant that he's articulate.  But I just can't see him as a leader- he's served less than half his term in Congress, and what legislative accomplishments can he point out?  The man is a political cipher.  I can't name anything that he stands _for,_ except 'being nice to everyone'.  I would say that 'being nice' and 'saying nice things that sound good to most people' are not good indicators of leadership- I sort of see an inverse correlation there.
> Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war.  One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious  Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII.  Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.
> 
> Sen. Obama has said very little to indicate to me that he has the sort of will or determination needed to be an effective leader along these lines- his recent comment about 'wasted' lives seems to me to indicate he believes that if something is too hard to do quickly or easily, we should just quit.



Look at his record as an illinois state senator.... or does that only count to guys who voted for him before?  Honestly, almost everyone in illinois thinks obama is great.  In 2004 he won 70% of the vote vs. Keyes' 27%.  Does that count as a landslide?  He was even less well-known then than he is now, so I don't think you can say he was groomed by the media or some big magic machine in the sky to become a senator.  We voted for him because he was charismatic and had a plan for the state to bring home the bacon, so to speak (hopefully that doesn't mean pork barrel projects).  Mostly what he has going for him now is what he always had going for him, and that is his charisma and pretty much clean slate compared to just about every other politician in washington.  Most politicians have their hands dirty with impropriety (real or percieved) -- the only dirt the right wing spin machine has been able to pull on obama is that his middle name is hussein and his last name kinda sounds like "osama".  _woo, scary stuff!_    I suppose doing drugs as a teenager (as he admitted in his 1995 memoir) counts as "could be bad" too but our current president's a DUI offender and a coke fiend to boot so drugs never really stopped moral objectionists from voting for somebody. 

The complete -lack- of political dirt on this guy IS rather unusual, and I can see why it might even scare you just a little bit, but that's no reason not to vote for him.  If you can't figure out where he stands, try his bid for nomination speech (which I linked earlier in this thread) -- that has a lot of key issues he wants to see action on (and in what direction) at capitol hill.  If that's too, how do I put it, straightforward? for you, you can always look into his upbringing and see how that could temper his political style.  He's very different from many of the other candidates you see at this level, working his way from the bottom up out of the city rather than someone from the country or even the suburbs.  Honestly though, try the video and you'll see a pretty ambitious platform, ranging on topics from the war to alternative fuel to broadband saturation.

Or you can try checking out one of his podcasts, which he used to do a couple years ago (and I think still does to this day) -- recently also appealing to the youtube crowd with video broadcast messages.  They used to include stuff regarding his views on certain agendas like Net Neutrality -- agendas that are important to someone like me, cause legislation for stuff like this will directly effect my livelihood and that of many people doing business on the web.  Check out obama.senate.gov for mostly dry political stuff, and for the exciting presidential hopeful stuff and social networking experiment (the stuff most of the non-political science majors types will enjoy more), go to www.barackobama.com.  It's really bleeding edge stuff this guy's campaign is doing to try and get popular support from the ground up online.


Edit:   _P.S.  Full disclosure -- I am an illinois resident and I voted for Barack Obama in 2004.  Been pro-obama since before most people even knew who he was_ :B

Edit2:  The obama keyes debates can be found HERE.  You can hear the candidates answer the questions and see how you feel about it, should you want to hear what obama sounds like debating.


----------



## LTIO-540-D2J (Feb 19, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> LTIO-540-D2J said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*grins*  No I don't.  Words mean things, and I chose this phrase very carefully.  



			
				noboyuki said:
			
		

> The complete -lack- of political dirt on this guy IS rather unusual, and I can see why it might even scare you just a little bit, but that's no reason not to vote for him.  If you can't figure out where he stands, try his bid for nomination speech (which I linked earlier in this thread) -- that has a lot of key issues he wants to see action on (and in what direction) at capitol hill.



I heard part of that speech, and that IS what sets off alarms.  I hear a political outlook/agenda that I don't agree with.  I strongly disagree with gun control, universal health care, and protectionist policies, three things he's publicly advocated.  Furthermore, with his meteoric rise and the waves of adulation rolling in from all directions, yet very little real political capital I suspect that there is a good possibility that he will have to make many, many political concessions that will nullify or modify beyond recognition his (in my opinion, at least) already nebulous stances.  I mean, already he's being cast as "too white" by some political players, and I suspect that's an effort to bend him to someone else's agenda.

I don't think his political career is THAT different- there's lots of politicians of all stripes who have come up from the absolute bottom.  Sen. Zell Miller started out dirt poor- his family home was built from rocks hand-dredged from a streambed. Condoleeza Rice's parents were sharecroppers.


----------



## iller (Feb 19, 2007)

America? ...electing an "Articulate" President?
...

0.o


...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 19, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Look at his record as an illinois state senator.... or does that only count to guys who voted for him before?  Honestly, almost everyone in illinois thinks obama is great.  In 2004 he won 70% of the vote vs. Keyes' 27%.  Does that count as a landslide?



Great, because I always look to Illinois as a progressive state. :roll:

Unknowns winning elections is not unheard of, and it makes for a rather poor argument. Just because you think they're great and it makes you happy, what other policies have really changed? Talk is cheap.

That's all I get from Obama, talk talk talk. No political record is fine, because I'm actually tired of greedy politicians, but at the same time, I'm not exactly impressed by Obama either. I certainly don't think he's the second coming of Christ, but he is a better alternative than the old party people, like Clinton and so forth.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 19, 2007)

P.S.  LOL Zell miller.  Wasn't he at the '04 republican national convention?  Speaking of nebulous






[attachment=992]


----------



## facek (Feb 19, 2007)

I want Tancredo!

But sadly he probably won't get the Republican Nomination because their priorites are messed. >8/


----------



## shy (Feb 19, 2007)

keep furry taboo


----------



## LTIO-540-D2J (Feb 20, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> P.S.  LOL Zell miller.  Wasn't he at the '04 republican national convention?


Yes, yes he was.  Your image-manipulation skills are strong- you should consider sending your resume to Reuters, Al-Manar, Al-Jazeera, and Al-Fars.  However, instead of the hot dog, Reuters recommends something with a little more punch to it.
As for your critical thinking skills:  Lay off Zell Miller.  The man is one of the last decent democrats (small 'd' democrat).  Do  you know _why_ he spoke at the RNC?  It's because ideologically,  the Republican Party is where the Democratic Party was 30 years ago, while the Democrats have lurched far to the left, leaving behind their principles in search of political power.  

Nebulous?  If you believe that, try losing the affected post-ironic cynicism and read a small book Sen. Miller wrote, called "Everything I Need To Know I Learned In The Marines".  It's concise and to the point. The man has been a Marine, a Governor, and a Senator.  He has a solid, proven record as a leader.  He has earned our consideration.

I'm trying to stay civil on this, but it really bugs me when people who deserve respect are treated shabbily by the uninformed, while those who haven't proved their worth are lauded and fawned over.


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 20, 2007)

If you're seriously looking for civility, then it's possible you may be on the wrong internet.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 20, 2007)

hi, posting on my pda here.  plz excuse poor formatting.


1.  zell miller's definately true to his convictions, but is he true to that of the party?  Locally I'm sure he's popular but I dont give much credance to dixiecrats.

2.  a person cant prove themselves if theyre being precluded the chance.  Obama's impressed illinois, and he's served well for us, now its a question of whether the nation thinks he'll serve them as well.


3.  did my 3yr old photoshop upset you?  Lol.  It was a silly ff8 reference, definately not news worthy.


4.  this is a stupid offtopic question but are you a sockpuppet?  your original objection to obama smacked of parroting.  mind the astroturf


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 20, 2007)

facek said:
			
		

> I want Tancredo!
> 
> But sadly he probably won't get the Republican Nomination because their priorites are messed. >8/



Same! I listen to him often when he gets on the John and Ken show, he doesn't really mince words or use talking points, which is something that I wish more politicians would do. XD

He's not PERFECT, but no one is, but I agree with him on a lot of points I'm interested in and especially how it will in turn effect us economically.


----------



## psu3doreal (Feb 20, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> Surgat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, no, I INSIST that you reword that.  If I'm guessing right the reason you said it that way, it is QUITE offensive.



			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war.  One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious  Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII.  Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.



Why do I get the feeling you were thinking of the Iraq war when you wrote this passage? Please don't compare Bush's actions to Lincoln or FDR's; the latter two were right in their decisions (and WWII was more popular than you make it out to be), while Bush was very, very wrong.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 20, 2007)

oh off topic but LTIO-540-D2J linked to some lame "reuters is pro hezbollah" non sequitur fallacy thing.... I just wanted to mention one of my friends was in lebanon when the war broke out and what wasn't reported was just as, what's the word?  biased as what was, if not moreso.  I won't mention the friend's name, because he's actually (at least imho) pretty well-known on this site already, and I'm sure that at least one dope is going to give some shitty "what was he even doing in lebanon?" crap and trying to undermine his credibility, trying to paint him out as something he's not.  That's why I won't mention his name.  At least one thing that I take his word on to have happened that had (at least originally) been denied by officials was the white phosphorus warheads being used as anti-personnel material giving civilians chemical burns through their clothes on the part of the israeli's.  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ? 

Cruel and inhumane, though --  You bet it was.  But then again, so is most war.  Media spin AND anti-spin is a bunch of shit and it's our job to try and see through that without trying to paint up some hidden agenda which won't pass occham's razor let alone a reasonable person's rationale.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 20, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				psu3doreal said:
			
		

> LTIO-540-D2J said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you going into that Chris Rock routine? "of course he is, he's an educated man!"

You shouldn't guess btw, though I can understand why it can be offensive, I've been told I'm "well spoken" very often as well. There are many politicians that aren't very articulate and it has nothing to do with race, mostly upbringing. Do you for example, find Bush well spoken?


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 20, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Do you for example, find Bush well spoken?



No.  But Jeb Bush?  That guy seems like 10 times smarter.  At least he talks 10 times faster.  Why didn't the country pick him instead, again?


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 20, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> No.  But Jeb Bush?  That guy seems like 10 times smarter.  At least he talks 10 times faster.  Why didn't the country pick him instead, again?



He wasn't running. 

But srsly, there's some videos floating around the 'net of what GW Bush sounded like at the beginning of his term compared to more recent public statements. He WAS more articulate, and then... I'm guessing he either stopped trying so hard to look good (I mean, he's the president!) or being in office has taken its toll on him mentally.

I do not envy _anyone_ who sits in the oval office...


----------



## LTIO-540-D2J (Feb 21, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				psu3doreal said:
			
		

> Oh, no, I INSIST that you reword that.  If I'm guessing right the reason you said it that way, it is QUITE offensive.



I REFUSE to restate that.  The theory that Bush tried to insult Obama by calling him articulate is the most assminded, stupendously imbecilic thing I've ever heard.    I _don't_ understand how it's offensive.  I watched the interview, and I just didn't see the slight. If you can't say that a man is well-spoken, how the fucking hell DO you say something nice about him??  I mean, seriously:  What is the approved, official compliment to use for Obama?  

I _do_ think Obama is articulate, and that's why I used it.  I've developed some opinions about the mechanics of his stated political goals.  How did I do this?  Well, first I got myself spun into yarn, and then a little old lady knit me into an oblong tube, and then sewed some buttons on...
Come on.  A fucking sock puppet?  I discussed Obama's politics, not his personality.  I didn't attack him personally. Just because my opinions don't meet your approval doesn't mean I'm incapable of independent thinking. Noboyuki, you seem pretty good at slinging around epithets, but not so good at the discussing things in a rational manner.  

And yes, I suspect that I have a different opinion on the Iraq war than some of you do.  If you look back, the reason we went was this:  The UN had passed dozens of resolutions that Saddam flaunted.  The UN Oil for Food program was being looted by Saddam and his regime.  UN Resolution 1441 laid out some very specific deadlines and consequences.  The breaking of these resolutions are the reason we went to war.  Unfortunately, that doesn't fit the reality a lot of people want to believe in, so they toss out all the evidence that was presented and yell and scream about what they want to be true, rather than what is.

Other reasons the Iraq war is good:  It makes Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia nervous.  It sucks in the jihadis and forces them to spend their resources over there, rather than over here.  It puts Islamic extremists in a kill zone, rather than a courtroom.  And despite what is printed on the front pages of a lot of papers, it really has helped huge portions of the Iraqi populaton- just look at the changes in Kurdistan.

How about some reasons Iraq is bad:  We didn't go in hard enough at certain times.  We completely disbanded the Iraqi Army, dissolving a potentially stabilizing force and creating ill will that may have fed the militias.  We let public opinion begin to dictate strategy and tactics. We didn't aggressively pursue opportunities to build relationships with the existing tribal leaders.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 21, 2007)

I really appreciate the thoughtful response, and because of that, I apologize for accusing you of sock puppetry. 

I do disagree on your reasoning that it's good because it makes those guys all nervous.  I wouldn't say that an increase in terrorism worldwide (even not counting the bodycount in iraq, it's gone up since 2003) is an acceptable "good" result of making the people in these countries nervous.  It seems to make jihadis do the opposite of what you say and funnel out into areas of anarchy hoping to fill the power vacuum.

Furthermore, ex post facto justification is not an acceptable reason for going to war.  The UN's resolution, if I remember correctly, wanted him to get rid of his WMD's, which since the 90s and leading up to the war saddam's regime had pretty much done after all the big inspector's fiascos.  I believe the last insult to this was iraq booting out the inspectors in '98 and starting Operation Desert Fox.  After that I don't think he ever had WMD's again, and that's why we didn't find any.  The reality is this -- the US went to war, and we dragged along our most compliant allies.  This was not a UN coalition like it was back in the Gulf war.

I don't know whether we should have gone to war or not before seeing the results, but in hindsight most americans believe it was a mistake, and they voted that opinion in 2006 I think.  Since 2005 my opinion's always been "well, maybe I wasn't so keen on the war, but I wasn't directly opposed to going in -- but now that we're stuck there we might as well do a good job and not leave the place a fucking mess".  That may or may not change depending on whether or not it's POSSIBLE to salvage the mess at this point.  Many people think the answer is "no" and they want to just pull out.  John McCain is not one of those people, and I don't think he'd accept that sort of defeat for what I think are very personal reasons.

Public opinion, while sometimes fickle, is important to any elected politician's job security.  It's not very democratic to run the country as a father-knows-best nation state, but I doubt anyone would disagree with that.  Anyways, that's neither here nor there and I feel that I might be contributing to the topic drifting to iraq war crap, and if that ain't a dead horse in the realm of political discussion I don't know what is XD


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 21, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> How about some reasons Iraq is bad:  We didn't go in hard enough at certain times.  We completely disbanded the Iraqi Army, dissolving a potentially stabilizing force and creating ill will that may have fed the militias.  We let public opinion begin to dictate strategy and tactics. We didn't aggressively pursue opportunities to build relationships with the existing tribal leaders.



I don't mind so much we went into Iraq, but the problem is, as stated the handling of that country was really messed up. The first thing you do is make sure you don't allow people to start scavenging for all the weapons and other stuff especially by the insurgents. 

The problem is that the politicians are all saying the same thing and not reading what people are interested in. Stop Global warming? The US accounts for 2%, the only way you can stop it is if you get the entire world involved, and China already gave the finger. I'm one that thinks it's Earth just doing its thing but that's besides the point. 

We stop warring in Iraq, then what? I suppose we cut our losses and leave but then I'm sure in another few years the internet debates of how we created more terrorists will happen, so either way we lose I guess. 

I think stopping terrorism starts at home, many people have stated in various polls illegal immigration is a prime concern because it shows how porous our borders are. If we cannot secure our borders we have no business trying to stop terrorism overseas because we're not looking at the areas in our closest proximity.

Unfortunately the politicians are more concerned about a cash cow thinking they can turn the Americas similar to a European economy. It's not going to happen when you have the upper north being socialist, the US capitalist, and corruption in the south Americas. These are very extreme economies, and you need to make sure each government and their people run along similar policies, or you're just going to create one hell of a mess.

I don't think Obama can change this, he may be able to make people feel good, but running off good feelings don't necessarily mean change. Change starts with the people first, not putting in false hopes in an elected official because he certainly can't govern each state. Besides which, polls have shown people's feelings upon a president have fallen in line with the price of gas.

The only reason I'd even bother to vote for Obama is the fact I am tired of seeing the same faces grabbing all the money and not changing anything. At least voting for someone other than a CLINTON OR BUSH would probably be a GOOD THING.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 21, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Stop Global warming? The US accounts for 2%



Where did you get that figure from?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm says that "The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country".


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 21, 2007)

maybe she was referring to global warming not produced by man?  I dunno where the major sources of that would be, but I'm sure someone else has some sort of reference to back it up.

Still, just cause china says "no we're still industrializing, don't try to lecture us on the environment now" doesn't mean we should just abandon or own ethical responsibility to not promote further economic problems as a result of global warming down the road.  (is it a billy cake argument?  China says:  no we won't follow kyoto so it's only fair the US shouldn't have to either?)


Edit:  On looking for statistics on global warming I've found so much political spin that it gives me a headache.  This is definitely a subject in which it matters to 'the powers that be' that the internet throw as much conflicting and confusing information as possible at you.  Totally not as straightforward as the environmental science class I took last year to fulfill my science credits, but then again they didn't spend as much time on global warming as they did on advanced waste management....


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 21, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm says that "The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country".



Give China a few years, they'll take care of that... but without even a nod to being environmentally concerned, let alone investing billions (US billion, not "million million") of dollars in reducing pollution. Hell, they have coal seam fires that burn for years, but don't do a thing about putting out because it's expensive, all the while with the fires belching out assorted nasty gasses (including not only CO2 and other "greenouse gasses", but sulfur and nitrogen oxides, which not only are hazardous to human health but are believed to contribute to acid rain), and low-level radiation (in the form of thorium and uranium).

(source)

China wouldn't have any external pressure to clean up, either, even with the Kyoto treaty. They were exempted from its regulations, as were many other 3rd-world countries that have similarly lax environmental concerns in their efforts to expand their respective economies.


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 21, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Edit:  On looking for statistics on global warming I've found so much political spin that it gives me a headache.  This is definitely a subject in which it matters to 'the powers that be' that the internet throw as much conflicting and confusing information as possible at you.



The internet may be a source of misinformation, but so are "the powers that be". GW is, IMO, being used as camoflage for increased government control, by the "GW is ruining the planet, we gotta act NOW!!!!11!1!!11" crowd, even though the science isn't quite as settled as Al Gore or the press would like people to believe. (Or, in short, as with anything else, "everybody knows" ain't necessarily so.)

Not that I think GW isn't an issue, I just don't buy the doomsayers, particularly when they're hawking a "cure" that means increasing government control over the private sector, in spite of there being some serious doubts as to the "proven" science.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 21, 2007)

When I was born, it was Global Cooling. I'm not saying there isn't environmental damage caused by industrialism, however, given the fact our weatherman can barely predict forecasts correctly, a lot of this is just projection. As mentioned before there is way too much political spin -SOMEONE is lying. 

Also, yeah there are some skewed numbers because some data only says what country's industrialism is causing the greater effect on Global Warming, whereas it leaves out what is the greatest contributor overall. That is a VERY big difference in data.


Do not mistake my jadedness towards the eventuality (of the earth's climate change where humans may not be able to live the same way) as we shouldn't do anything. That's not the issue here, so much as the parties are trying to use this as a gaining ground for votes. I highly doubt either party has the answer.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Feb 21, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				LTIO-540-D2J said:
			
		

> psu3doreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should get your facts straight. It wasn't Bush who said that.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 21, 2007)

Obama should just speak in jive and ebonics and the media will gladly run interferance for him and not only that, but the brothers on the street will start 'feeling him' and you'll have a utter riot of black people demanding that screw waiting for 2008/2009, they want to vote now. 

The man speaks well, but he's so freaking oreo and worse he's got no real potlical background. He's there to stir up all my fellow NAACP spoon-fed negros because old HRC isn't cutting it with them. At what point he's got that really strong support and black people get all happy, HRC will unleash her true power and go over 9000, get the nod and offer Obama a slot as VP so she can scoop up all those angry negro folks who will be -pissed- she steamrollered him in the primary (And she will without a second thought because she's got a long, long, long list of people who owe her) and ride him like her pony to the White House.

I'd almost rather see that big thugging  black ex congress woman who slapped police and talked street up instead of Obama, at least you know who she is. I can't tell who Obama is yet and nor can most people till the media gets done crafting his image for the non black folks. 19 months in the goverment and he's being toted as VP, what?


----------



## facek (Feb 21, 2007)

Why does being Half Black have to make him Black, he is half white so why can't he just decide to be white? This is part of a problem in society where anyone who is partialy black is viewed as black, rather than whatever other race they are.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 21, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jeb is ready for a rest AND he does not want to deal with the BS of running for the White House.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 21, 2007)

A question on Paula Zahn's "Out in the Open" once was "Is Obama black enough?",  the question bluntly bringing to the forefront the large differences in the perceived agenda between obama and other african american candidates before him such as Jesse Jackson and to a lesser extent, Al Sharpton.  The program basically addressed what seems to be a sentiment among part of the african american community that obama is not your typical african american candidate.  You bring up an interesting point Foxstar, because the race issue sadly cannot be ignored (though I wish it was something we and the media as well have to keep bringing up as a "you know," sort of thing)

That's the thing, though.  I'm was never interested in a candidate like jackson or sharpton strictly because they seemed to appeal directly to an african american vote (especially sharpton later) at the expense of alienating voters like me who couldn't give much a damn about the race issue.  I'd hope our generation (and by that I mean the generation of people between 18 and around my age) are starting to go beyond that sort of crap.  We were born two decades after the civil rights act, and institutionalized segregation's been out of style since then.  Lingering racism exists in the form of culture clash like the kind we see even today, like with this whole question of "is obama black enough".

Why does it feel like a black man's abandoning some sort of culture, or would be labeled an "oreo" (ugh I dislike that term) simply because they don't have a stereotypical sort of demeanor or agenda?  It's not the best analogy, but it would be like the gay/bisexual community at large criticizing non-heterosexuals for -being- "normal" or "mundane" or whatever the counter-clash is to an average american, rather than being flamingly gay. You wouldn't otherwise think twice about in your head with a thought like "man, that guy's acting really queer" to these people, or analogously, "man that guy's a real stereotype".  

You know what I mean?  This is kind of a tough issue for me to talk about online cause it's so easy to be misunderstood.  What I'm saying is, I don't see what's not okay with not wanting to stick out like that.  We have a love/hate thing going on between individualism and assimilation -- America's a melting pot but some of us feel it's like an insult to lose parts of our cultural identity or something.  I personally grew up with parents from very very different backgrounds, so to me this culture thing's kinda confusing, cause my immediate family was "assimilated americans" stereotype all over, while my extended family's 2nd generation mexican and so on.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 21, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> A question on Paula Zahn's "Out in the Open" once was "Is Obama black enough?",  the question bluntly bringing to the forefront the large differences in the perceived agenda between obama and other african american candidates before him such as Jesse Jackson and to a lesser extent, Al Sharpton.  The program basically addressed what seems to be a sentiment among part of the african american community that obama is not your typical african american candidate.  You bring up an interesting point Foxstar, because the race issue sadly cannot be ignored (though I wish it was something we and the media as well have to keep bringing up as a "you know," sort of thing)



Well there's a few reasons. Jesse and Sharpton are largely jokes, even among the "We hate crackers" black folks and even their skin and race pimping isn't enough to really get folks all reved up over them. It's one of the bigger issues, there's really not many black folks in high places who could run for office. Those that are are 'dirty' in some fashion, passed over by the ruling class of the DNC because they don't fit the mold, or most damning have been labeled as Uncle Toms/Oreos/Reading Niggers by black folks at large. Obama is for some reason getting black folks rather reved up like they haven't been in years and I don't understand why other then the mindset of "He makes us look good." among the older folks and a few of the younger ones. Race will always be a issue. The media however is worried that he won't connect with that 18-30 age bracket because he emits oreo vibes.



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Why does it feel like a black man's abandoning some sort of culture, or would be labeled an "oreo" (ugh I dislike that term) simply because they don't have a stereotypical sort of demeanor or agenda?



Because the one thing a load of "Making it any way I can." black folks hate more then "The man." is a 'Reading Nigger' AKA-Oreo and quite simply most black folks who get into high places in goverment without giving loads and loads of lip service and pork back to the brothers and sisters in the ghetto is seen as "Leaving your roots behind." It's been going on for years and in a way it's as big of a poison to black families and culture as black women having to be the mother and father. It also means that if your black enough and follow the rules of most black inner city culture and poiltics, you can have as close to a united black front as possable. That's almost unheard of. Powell had it briefly..but when it became clear he wasn't going for it (And wouldn't get the support due to being a semi RINO) he lost it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 21, 2007)

For me, I don't particularly care. It's not like I can correlate how I need to give back to people that have been a bunch of jerks. Meaning that many Blacks have acted extremely racist against other Blacks and judging by skin tone. Some Blacks call you an Oreo if you're too light skinned, others think you're too much of a "nigger" if you're too dark. It's all madness to me.

I speak the way I do and feel I owe nothing due to my ethnicity because of my upbringing where you need to be an individual. It's rather annoying to get the "help a brotha/sistah" out when I don't know them. The basis of sharing a similar ethnicity, when they know nothing else about me gets a free handout. I don't think so and Homey Dun Play dat.

I do however recognize problems that happen to Blacks but sometimes this is racial and not racist and often times it's because again Blacks are more racist with each other than any White guy could be. Da Man is an easy scapegoat but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at our own culture, and drop the "group guilt/sheepherding" complex.


----------



## LTIO-540-D2J (Feb 22, 2007)

*RE: Barack Obama a leader?*



			
				capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> [You should get your facts straight. It wasn't Bush who said that.


You should get your own facts straight.  I watched the words come out of his mouth in an interview with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?

BUSH: Oh, I don't know. He, let's â€” he hasn't gotten elected yet. He hasn't even gotten the party's nomination.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: He's an attractive guy. He's articulate. I have been impressed with him when I have seen him in person. But he's got a long way to go to be president.

Here's the transcript, if you want to check it yourself.  Ctrl-F, type in 'articulate', and you'll see it about halfway down the page.

EDIT:  I think you may have had Sen. Biden's backhanded compliment in mind:  â€œI mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, thatâ€™s a storybook, man.â€
Reference can befound here.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2007)

Some of the utterly *ignorant* ass ideas displayed in this thread are making me physically ill. From people comparing fursection to real persecution, to people comparing figures to see which group has the monopoly on the victim complex, to people confusing race and culture.... Jesus Christ, I don't know who to attack first without getting the wrong people caught in the crossfire. It's like the part in Terminator 2 where he's firing the gatling gun out the window at Cyberdyne.


----------



## Ylm (Mar 1, 2007)

I like how the meaning of articulation just got murdered. I really appreciate that.

FYI, YOU CAN BE ARTICULATE AND STILL SPEAK JIVE/EBONICS


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2007)

Ylm said:
			
		

> FYI, YOU CAN BE ARTICULATE AND STILL SPEAK JIVE/EBONICS



Exactly. It's called code switching. It's a concept that seems to escape some dumbasses.


----------



## Seto Ashura (Mar 1, 2007)

...wow. I actually don't know what to say to any of this.


----------



## Turbine_Divinity (Mar 2, 2007)

Seto Ashura said:
			
		

> ...wow. I actually don't know what to say to any of this.



This whole thread is genius. It's like finding El Dorado. It's got fursecution AND black rage!


----------



## Seto Ashura (Mar 2, 2007)

Two cheers for black rage, then. lol

It's all above my head, unfortunately.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 3, 2007)

turbinedivinity said:
			
		

> Seto Ashura said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps, but I still think the fallout from the babyfur tatoos is the L.A riots of furrydumb.


----------



## Xela-Dasi (Nov 30, 2014)

Seto Ashura said:


> Two cheers for black rage, then. lol
> 
> It's all above my head, unfortunately.



black rage?


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Nov 30, 2014)

Damn it reeks of gravedust in here. This thread's last post was before I even joined the forums. That's some crazy necroing going on here lol.


----------



## funky3000 (Nov 30, 2014)

Putting Coyote's witchcraft to shame, I see.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 30, 2014)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> Damn it reeks of gravedust in here. This thread's last post was before I even joined the forums. That's some crazy necroing going on here lol.


This thread is so old, I thought it was about President van Buren!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all night. Try the fish.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 1, 2014)

When this thread started, Barack Obama was still a Senator.


----------



## Maugryph (Dec 1, 2014)

Gryphoneer said:


> This thread is so old, I thought it was about President van Buren!
> 
> Thank you, thank you, I'm here all night. Try the fish.



*clap* *clap* *clap*


----------



## Taralack (Dec 1, 2014)

Holy shit.. come on guys, check the last post in a thread before you reply, please.


----------

