Obama's election did not improve race relations

[decocker 7,198]

Can't speak as a black man? If a president is white, can he speak as a white man? The double standard is laughable.

that's basically what's being said, he can't publicly empathize with other black people. why not? if a president is white - doesn't he speak as a white man i mean i don't see how we can expect otherwise - he's white. i don't see the double standard. it really just sounds like, i'm not black and i can't say i'm black and that's not fair. it all comes from a position of feeling like being black 'gets' you something in this country, which i find laughable.

[rlogan 2,036]

Are you pointing to the commentary that I posted by Clarence Page? I thought is was timely, balanced and well written. If you are referring to another article, please disregard

lol.

The premise is backwards. Obama represents the end of 150 years in improved race relations, not some kind of new dawn that was squandered by him.

We aren't going to stop electing black people just because Obama turned out to be a loser. Colin Powell should have been in there. But his career ended when Bush sent him into the UN to put on that historically tragic Iraq WMD fairy tale.

He resigned over that. His pedigree was much better than Obama's and he would have made a better president. But same thing there: his personal performance is really irrelevant against centuries of inexorable improvement in race relations. The fact we very well could have elected Powell or even Alan Keys is what's right about race relations, not how any one of them does personally.

Edited September 26, 2014 by rlogan

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

that's basically what's being said, he can't publicly empathize with other black people. why not? if a president is white - doesn't he speak as a white man i mean i don't see how we can expect otherwise - he's white. i don't see the double standard. it really just sounds like, i'm not black and i can't say i'm black and that's not fair. it all comes from a position of feeling like being black 'gets' you something in this country, which i find laughable.

So tell me . Obama has stuck his finger into 3 situations that no President should have gotten involved in. In every one it was a white on black situation, and in the TM case Obama, admitted he was involved because the kid was black.

You can't with a straight face tell me that if GWB had done that, the nation and media would not have lost it's mind.

Obama is the president not a civil rights protestor. Tell me, why did he not take the side of GZ, it would have been just as reasonable as taking TM's side.

[decocker 7,198]

So tell me . Obama has stuck his finger into 3 situations that no President should have gotten involved in. In every one it was a white on black situation, and in the TM case Obama, admitted he was involved because the kid was black.

You can't with a straight face tell me that if GWB had done that, the nation and media would not have lost it's mind.

Obama is the president not a civil rights protestor. Tell me, why did he not take the side of GZ, it would have been just as reasonable as taking TM's side.

it is your opinion that obama shouldn't have gotten involved. it isn't national law.

it's a pointless comparison. the white experience and black experience in america are two different beasts - i'm sorry that you find that unfair. the nation wouldn't have 'lost it's mind' i don't think anyone would have paid any attention at all. gwb said a lot of gibberish while he was in office,it would have blended in.

i don't recall seeing obama marching in any protests, do you? he didn't take gz's side, apparently, because he didn't support gz. the shock! why whould he back a side he didn't agree with? you think it's reasonable to side with gz - there's a good portion of people that believe justice when unserved in that matter.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

that's basically what's being said, he can't publicly empathize with other black people. why not? if a president is white - doesn't he speak as a white man i mean i don't see how we can expect otherwise - he's white. i don't see the double standard. it really just sounds like, i'm not black and i can't say i'm black and that's not fair. it all comes from a position of feeling like being black 'gets' you something in this country, which i find laughable.

0bama doesn't grasp the meaning of our country's name. That being: The United States of America. For him, and those like him it is renamed to: Us Against Them.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

it is your opinion that obama shouldn't have gotten involved. it isn't national law.

it's a pointless comparison. the white experience and black experience in america are two different beasts - i'm sorry that you find that unfair. the nation wouldn't have 'lost it's mind' i don't think anyone would have paid any attention at all. gwb said a lot of gibberish while he was in office,it would have blended in.

i don't recall seeing obama marching in any protests, do you? he didn't take gz's side, apparently, because he didn't support gz. the shock! why whould he back a side he didn't agree with? you think it's reasonable to side with gz - there's a good portion of people that believe justice when unserved in that matter.

Oh I C. It's ok for a black president but not ok for a white. The old racial double standard. Gotcha

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh I C. It's ok for a black president but not ok for a white. The old racial double standard. Gotcha

As for the Black experience.. I guess all Black people have the same exact life experiences.that are totally different from Whites who all have the same exact white experience.

Way to lump and sterotype

[decocker 7,198]

0bama doesn't grasp the meaning of our country's name. That being: The United States of America. For him, and those like him it is renamed to: Us Against Them.

Oh I C. It's ok for a black president but not ok for a white. The old racial double standard. Gotcha

what the two of you are having difficulties grasping - all throughout history white men have been president. if these white men wanted to push a certain cause or draw a certain conflict to light or an issue into the public eye - they could. it was their agenda. a black president gets in and does the same thing and ya'll are flipping out 'whaaatt?! a white president couldn't do that" it's childish, and petty. and shows a poor grasp of social context and american history.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

what the two of you are having difficulties grasping - all throughout history white men have been president. if these white men wanted to push a certain cause or draw a certain conflict to light or an issue into the public eye - they could. it was their agenda. a black president gets in and does the same thing and ya'll are flipping out 'whaaatt?! a white president couldn't do that" it's childish, and petty. and shows a poor grasp of social context and american history.

Thanks for the sales pitch. It sounds like it can dice, slice, chop, and grind, but when it arrived in the mail, all I got was a few buttons that said: "Member of the Nation of Cowards" "You didn't build that!" "If I had a son" "Spread the wealth around" "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". The buttons were really cool so I sent in a donation to get the blind leading the blind set.

[Karee 4,191]

what the two of you are having difficulties grasping - all throughout history white men have been president. if these white men wanted to push a certain cause or draw a certain conflict to light or an issue into the public eye - they could. it was their agenda. a black president gets in and does the same thing and ya'll are flipping out 'whaaatt?! a white president couldn't do that" it's childish, and petty. and shows a poor grasp of social context and american history.

It's a double standard plain and simple. You have the president of the U.S. coming out and making a statement in support of of a U.S. citizen based on that person's race. If a white U.S. president did that, he would be called a racist. Being the president, he should be sending a message about racial equality. With that statement, he did the opposite. You have no issue with it, because it fits your agenda. I get it. Still doesn't make it right.

Not only that, he made the statement prior to all the facts coming to light at a trial. He must have slept through most of his classes at Harvard Law.

what the two of you are having difficulties grasping - all throughout history white men have been president. if these white men wanted to push a certain cause or draw a certain conflict to light or an issue into the public eye - they could. it was their agenda. a black president gets in and does the same thing and ya'll are flipping out 'whaaatt?! a white president couldn't do that" it's childish, and petty. and shows a poor grasp of social context and american history.

Strike two. If a white president came out and made a comment like Obama did about a person's race, that comment would be labelled racist, as it should be.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Oh I C. It's ok for a black president but not ok for a white. The old racial double standard. Gotcha

It's a double standard plain and simple. You have the president of the U.S. coming out and making a statement in support of of a U.S. citizen based on that person's race. If a white U.S. president did that, he would be called a racist. Being the president, he should be sending a message about racial equality. With that statement, he did the opposite. You have no issue with it, because it fits your agenda. I get it. Still doesn't make it right.

Not only that, he made the statement prior to all the facts coming to light at a trial. He must have slept through most of his classes at Harvard Law.

Strike two. If a white president came out and made a comment like Obama did about a person's race, that comment would be labelled racist, as it should be.

Here's a simple question. Do you think black people and white people here in America are treated the same?

[Rob L 3,811]

lol.

The premise is backwards. Obama represents the end of 150 years in improved race relations, not some kind of new dawn that was squandered by him.

We aren't going to stop electing black people just because Obama turned out to be a loser. Colin Powell should have been in there. But his career ended when Bush sent him into the UN to put on that historically tragic Iraq WMD fairy tale.

He resigned over that. His pedigree was much better than Obama's and he would have made a better president. But same thing there: his personal performance is really irrelevant against centuries of inexorable improvement in race relations. The fact we very well could have elected Powell or even Alan Keys is what's right about race relations, not how any one of them does personally.

I didn't read in the commentary that Americans will/won't have another black president. What the Pew data show is that despite the country being ready to accept a Black leader, the perceptions of White people and Black people have not come closer together.

The poll data does not support the view that we live a post racial society, for some that is discouraging.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I didn't read in the commentary that Americans will/won't have another black president. What the Pew data show is that despite the country being ready to accept a Black leader, the perceptions of White people and Black people have not come closer together.

The poll data does not support the view that we live a post racial society, for some that is discouraging.

I don't think we will have another black president for a while. Even though I don't think Obama did horrible, since he didn't cure world hunger or usher in a new peace and tranquility around the world, any other candidates will be judged on that.

[Karee 4,191]

Here's a simple question. Do you think black people and white people here in America are treated the same?

No I don't. However, as I've stated about 100 times here, continually setting double standards only ensures that they will never be treated the same. Can't have it both ways.

[Rob L 3,811]

It's a double standard plain and simple. You have the president of the U.S. coming out and making a statement in support of of a U.S. citizen based on that person's race. If a white U.S. president did that, he would be called a racist. Being the president, he should be sending a message about racial equality. With that statement, he did the opposite. You have no issue with it, because it fits your agenda. I get it. Still doesn't make it right.

Not only that, he made the statement prior to all the facts coming to light at a trial. He must have slept through most of his classes at Harvard Law.

Strike two. If a white president came out and made a comment like Obama did about a person's race, that comment would be labelled racist, as it should be.

If young white men had a 1 in 3 chance they would incarcerated in their life time and 1 in 15 white males were currently in prison/jail, would we expect the president to spend some time and political capital addressing the issue?