'Nuff said.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
For tears of joy!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'll be nice to celebrate for once. In 2000 I was disgusted, and in 2004 I was pissed. This could be a nice reaction on an election night.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was upset in 2000, in 2004 I felt like my heart had been ripped out of my body. And I didn't even particularly like Kerry that much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Me neither.
I actually volunteered for Howard Dean in 2004.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I was upset in 2000, in 2004 I felt like my heart had been ripped out of my body. And I didn't even particularly like Kerry that much.
I think Kerry's problem was that no one liked him that much.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm much more upset that prop 8 will pass than the obamanation will be president.
The way I figure it, if he's as bad as I think, he'll be gone in four years and we can get back to our lives. If he's worse, he'll get impeached. If he's not as bad, well hey, I'm happy to be wrong. Besides, McLame is pretty much a democrat himself. At least this way, it won't be the guy I voted for bringing socialism to every aspect of our lives.
Prop 8 is going to be around for a long time and it's going to take a lot of effort and money to get rid of.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is what democracy is: sometimes 'you' win, other times 'you' lose-- it shows that your democracy is working. Both your parties have a word that means a country with elections in their name. They should expect to see some ebb and flow. It's not like you've had sixteen years of Democrats and now you're onto more Democrats. You've had eight years of Democrats, eight years of Republicans. The system is working.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Exactly Tesh. YOUR GUY is not always the one in power. (which is another reason to shrink the size of goverment. but that argument is lost on this current generation I think...)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm much more upset that prop 8 will pass than the obamanation will be president.
The way I figure it, if he's as bad as I think, he'll be gone in four years and we can get back to our lives. If he's worse, he'll get impeached. If he's not as bad, well hey, I'm happy to be wrong. Besides, McLame is pretty much a democrat himself. At least this way, it won't be the guy I voted for bringing socialism to every aspect of our lives.
Prop 8 is going to be around for a long time and it's going to take a lot of effort and money to get rid of.
Prop 8 is down in polls though... it always has been losing.
Why are you getting all republican on us with the "obamanation" garbage? I expect more. I don't know exactly why, but I do.
Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
Is it? I've heard both people for and against Obama using that term.
Of course, generally, the pro-Obama (Probama?) people are using it as a play on Obama Nation AND abomination.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
No I had never noticed, and I still fail to see how it it an racial anything.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Prop 8 is going to be around for a long time and it's going to take a lot of effort and money to get rid of.
Apparently, some of the Prop 8 supporters have been calling people pretending to be pro-gay and telling them that if they want to keep same sex marriage, they have to vote "yes" on Prop 8.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
KNOCK ON WOOD!!!!!!!
That said, I hope you're right. Just keep knocking on wood until Tuesday. I'm superstitious (it comes with being a baseball fan). I volunteered in VA this weekend, and it was amazing. I'm going to try and go back today and maybe help out on Tuesday as well. GObama!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet."
Please explain this, Orincoro. As far as I can tell, it's merely shorthand for "Obama's presidency would be an abomination" - which, while I consider it a stupid idea regardless, could refer to his policies, his abilities, problems with the political process, etc. I don't really see how it necessarily ties into race (though that's one possible meaning among many).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Is my calling McCain "McLame" somehow racist against white people too?
I dispise both of these asp-holes we have running for president. Race doesn't enter into it.
Of course... ANY criticism of BHO, even a silly pun of his name, is automatically racist. Right?
Lisa: I think that's less damaging than their arugment that prop 8 will some how protect kids from ever being exposed to gay people. That's swayed a lot of the stupid vote.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Exactly Tesh. YOUR GUY is not always the one in power. (which is another reason to shrink the size of goverment. but that argument is lost on this current generation I think...)
I am very much in favor of a minimalist government, which is largely why I am NOT voting Republican. They can claim to be in favor of small government as much as they like but the numbers don't support them. Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr. have had insane deficit spending the likes of which we'd never seen before.
Now, Democrats aren't a small government party but they don't claim to be and in reality, they seem to spend much less money than Republicans do. That is probably my #2 reason for voting Democrat this election. (#1 is energy/encironment)
If you can show me a better option for those of us in favor of small government, I'd love to hear about it! Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
P.S. I don't see why Obamination is a racist remark. It's clearly a play on his name. Granted, I strongly disagree with the sentiment because I think he will make a good president, but to each his own. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Me neither.
I actually volunteered for Howard Dean in 2004.
Haha me too...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
How on earth do you see it as racial? It's a portmanteau of Obama and abomination. Other than the fact that Obama is biracial, there's no race mentioned in it at all.
Edit: And honestly, Orincoro, if we had sigs on Hatrack, I think I'd starting using that quote as mine just because of how bizarre it is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa: I think that's less damaging than their arugment that prop 8 will some how protect kids from ever being exposed to gay people. That's swayed a lot of the stupid vote.
Which is ultimately the main problem. The stupid vote is always the biggest percentage of any vote.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Wait why would Obama be such a bad president? (I know some reasons but I would like to hear your view)
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If Obama wins, there will be no tears.
The Conservative Radioheads will celebrate. They have four years of secure jobs spewing easy hate on the president, instead of the more difficult job of spewing hate on those who hate President Bush. I mean, come on, that's way complicated for their target audience.
The rest of the conservatives will be too busy packing for their move out of the country to spend much time crying. Unfortunately for them, there are few places they can escape too. Running to Canada is out since its so far to the left of their beliefs they get whiplash just looking at it.
The moderates will be celebrating that the whole freaking mess is over.
The liberals...well, you just may have some tears here. Who are they going to throw their hate at? Move On Dot Org will either have to change its name, or its politics.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by luthe: No I had never noticed, and I still fail to see how it it an racial anything.
A half-black, half-white, "Abomination." Not just a portmanteau of "Obama" and "Nation."
Like "paling around with terrorists," is specifically chosen over "associating yourself with a single (not plural) former radical leftist who blew up buildings and were not part of an islamic fascist movement"
The excuse lies in that there is an "Obama-nation" connection, but it makes absolutely no sense to use it as a pejorative and not acknowledge the similarity to "abomination," which means: "a thing that causes disgust or hatred," and carries both religious and racial overtones.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
How on earth do you see it as racial? It's a portmanteau of Obama and abomination. Other than the fact that Obama is biracial, there's no race mentioned in it at all.
Edit: And honestly, Orincoro, if we had sigs on Hatrack, I think I'd starting using that quote as mine just because of how bizarre it is.
And yet my dictionary uses this sentence as its first example of the use of "abomination:" the Pharisees regarded Gentiles as an abomination to God
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Is my calling McCain "McLame" somehow racist against white people too?
I dispise both of these asp-holes we have running for president. Race doesn't enter into it.
Of course... ANY criticism of BHO, even a silly pun of his name, is automatically racist. Right?
The answers I would give here are no, and no. Since McLame is a play on McCain and McDonalds, the name calls to mind corporate buffoonery and greed, but is not particularly racially charged.
When you use Obama's name to empasize his "otherness," basically his outside status as a "real" American, then that is firstly an invalid criticism, and racially charged, yes. It goes along with people like you referring to him as BHM, which calls attention to the H which stands for Hussein. Or the lovely articles written about him which always, always refer to him by all three of his names, when that particular writer is not generally given to such formality (the Bushes hardly count because they need to be distinguished, so don't give me that lame ass answer).
Now, you are perfectly free to refer to him as BHM or the Obamanation, or Barack HUSSEIN Obama or simply Barack Hussein Obama, as the slightly more subtle do. However, I will not sit here and pretend that your choice of moniker is just "a silly nickname." A silly nickname for Barack might be "barry" or "big ears" or even "dumbo," given the size of his ears, and his hopeful disposition. The words you use are chosen for a reason, and if they copied from others, then those others have used them for their own reasons. I can't say what all those reasons are, but I can say with certainty what they do evoke in their uses. You, and all the conservatives, and really most of the liberals, and all the people who play these stupid little games with the way they talk, have plausible deniability. But I say the deniability you are really invoking is your own lack of judgment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Then your dictionary is preposterous. The word abomination is used dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible, before the Christian sequel was ever written. (That quote, by the way, is also an anti-semitic canard).
There is no racial overtone whatsoever to the word "abomination".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It goes along with people like you referring to him as BHM, which calls attention to the H which stands for Hussein.
"People like" her? Your slip is seriously showing, dude.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: When you use Obama's name to empasize his "otherness," basically his outside status as a "real" American, then that is firstly an invalid criticism, and racially charged, yes.
That's nuts. You need to go and look up what "racial" means. Not in the dictionary that you used to derive a racial intent to "abomination", though. Toss that one in the trash.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: A silly nickname for Barack might be "barry"
You do realize that Barry is name he's gone by for most of his life, right? This is like claiming that "jimmy" is a "silly nickname" for James Earl Carter.
When homophobes call homosexuality an abomination, is it racial? When the Bible says that using non-standard weights and measures, or eating pork, or spreading gossip are abominations, is that racial? "Abomination" means something disgusting. The anti-semitic quote your dictionary used intends to claim that rabbinic Jews viewed non-Jews as disgusting. This was simply a case of falsely attributing racial motives to them. But even if it wasn't a lie, the existence of one case where abomination is used for another group doesn't make the word have a racial connotation.
I think you're looking for anything you can shoehorn into a racial meaning. I can't believe that you honestly think that's what the word means.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, "Barry" isn't a silly name for Barack Obama. It's the name he prefers to use. It's as silly as "Bill" Clinton.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Unconvincing, Orincoro.
To qualify as a racial epithet it'd have to have some racist motivation AND connotation. It doesn't have the latter, and you haven't demonstrated the former.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by luthe: No I had never noticed, and I still fail to see how it it an racial anything.
A half-black, half-white, "Abomination." Not just a portmanteau of "Obama" and "Nation."
Where do you get the idea that the abomination part is his racial background?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The excuse lies in that there is an "Obama-nation" connection, but it makes absolutely no sense to use it as a pejorative and not acknowledge the similarity to "abomination," which means: "a thing that causes disgust or hatred," and carries both religious and racial overtones.
"Abomination" can be used in a religious or racial context but I've never actually thought of the word as having religious or racial overtones.
Tangent: Is there a difference between calling something an overtone versus calling it an undertone?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It goes along with people like you referring to him as BHM, which calls attention to the H which stands for Hussein.
"People like" her? Your slip is seriously showing, dude.
The people being people who don't like him. Not lesbians- if that's what you were saying. I don't really know that much about pix beyond that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Then your dictionary is preposterous. The word abomination is used dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible, before the Christian sequel was ever written. (That quote, by the way, is also an anti-semitic canard).
There is no racial overtone whatsoever to the word "abomination".
It's the Oxford American Dictionary.
And I'd just love to see some proof of that claim. Course there is none.
edit:
quote:I think you're looking for anything you can shoehorn into a racial meaning. I can't believe that you honestly think that's what the word means.
Lisa, when you use the word "disgusting," it has no racial or religious overtones. When you say "biracial people are disgusting," it does. "Obamanation" is many things. I'm not going to sit here and spell out all the connections between criticism of Obama as an "abomination," linked with the word "nation." I'm not claiming that in all cases in perpetuity throughout the universe "abomination" is racially charged. What I am claiming however, is that people are using "Obamanation" as a racial epithet. I believe that. In this context specifically, abomination could be being used as a description for a mixing of "the other" with "the self." That's all contained within the picture of Obama himself as an "abomination," or a mix of black muslim and white christian heritage. I'm not going to claim it's a solidly defined meme- it isn't. But what it does, is attempt to establish the election of Obama as a sign of the destruction of our society.
Just stop and think if any such epithet could ever have been attached to Al Gore or Jon Kerry? The fact is that their names are a part of white christian American heritage, and Obama is a recent addition. People who use that term would love for you to sit back and picture that poster of the presidents on your schoolroom wall: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. They want to startle you with the newness and the suddenness of the change. By distorting the name and linking it to the new word, they call attention to your lack of experience with that name- that it symbolizes only one man, and is otherwise uncommon in our experience- that it is "un-American."
You don't have to believe it, but that's what I see in it.
[ November 02, 2008, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Orin: by "people like [me]" which do you mean?
Do you mean bisexuals, libertarians or bi-racial people?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Then your dictionary is preposterous. The word abomination is used dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible, before the Christian sequel was ever written. (That quote, by the way, is also an anti-semitic canard).
There is no racial overtone whatsoever to the word "abomination".
It's the Oxford American Dictionary.
And I'd just love to see some proof of that claim. Course there is none.
It's not her job to show that there isn't. It's your job to show that there is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orin: by "people like [me]" which do you mean?
Do you mean bisexuals, libertarians or bi-racial people?
I meant people who use the word Obamanation, actually. I didn't know you were those other things.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Before you fling racism acusations around, please be aware who you're flinging it at.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Threads- I added my justification for my claim.
quote: To qualify as a racial epithet it'd have to have some racist motivation AND connotation. It doesn't have the latter, and you haven't demonstrated the former.
It's a new word- its connotation is negative.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Before you fling racism acusations around, please be aware who you're flinging it at.
To be clear, I am not calling you a racist. I am pointing out that the language you are using is racially charged. You are not immune from that, and the fact that I don't know (or care about) your ethnicity should be a positive.
I don't give a pass because you're biracial. You don't know my ethnicity (not with certainty).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It is not racially charged except in that any criticism of BHO aka "The Obamanation" is racist.
Let it go. You're making an ass of yourself.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh, nice. the "your embarassing yourself" play. Screw you and the horse you rode in on. I hope you puke with rage when the Obamanation is born.
And way to not address a single thing I said. That's admirable. I want to be a libertarian too, it seems easy.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Threads- I added my justification for my claim.
quote: To qualify as a racial epithet it'd have to have some racist motivation AND connotation. It doesn't have the latter, and you haven't demonstrated the former.
It's a new word- its connotation is negative.
We know the connotation is negative. You have to establish that it is racist. It does not follow that it has a racial connotation because it has been used in racial contexts (I'm referring to "abomination" not "Obamanation"). I don't see how you can establish "abomination" as being a racially charged word without also implicitly including words like "stupid".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Threads- I added my justification for my claim.
quote: To qualify as a racial epithet it'd have to have some racist motivation AND connotation. It doesn't have the latter, and you haven't demonstrated the former.
It's a new word- its connotation is negative.
We know the connotation is negative. You have to establish that it is racist. It does not follow that it has a racial connotation because it has been used in racial contexts (I'm referring to "abomination" not "Obamanation"). I don't see how you can establish "abomination" as being a racially charged word without also implicitly including words like "stupid".
The connotation of a word depends on the context of its use. Abomination can be used with a negative and racial connotation. I'm not out to prove that this is always the case. It isn't always the case.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Why do you think that "Obamanation" specifically refers to Obama's mixed racial background?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm much more upset that prop 8 will pass than the obamanation will be president.
The way I figure it, if he's as bad as I think, he'll be gone in four years and we can get back to our lives. If he's worse, he'll get impeached. If he's not as bad, well hey, I'm happy to be wrong. Besides, McLame is pretty much a democrat himself. At least this way, it won't be the guy I voted for bringing socialism to every aspect of our lives.
Prop 8 is going to be around for a long time and it's going to take a lot of effort and money to get rid of.
"Whats bad about him" is simply wishing to do policies that contradict your libertarian beliefs? Which US politics have been bulldozing over, and purging with fire and salt for decades? Under what alternate reality you live in could this possible lead to him being impeached? If GWB did not get impeached for his incompetence and tearing apart civil liberties, and Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a BJ in the Oval Office and Nixon could have possibly have gotten scott free then how in any REASONABLE universe could Obama possibly get impeached for doing any of the things he and the Democratic party currently wish to do?
Your move.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh, Blayne. You tickle me in all the best ways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am posting in this high quality thread.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
That makes you high quality!
Welcome to the High quality club Samprimary!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
CANDIDATE WITH REALISTIC POLICIES WINS (Hardcore libertarian tear bucket)
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
Abomination is one of Vermonts favorite racial slurs actually, it doesn't signify any specific race but the mixture of races. When i hear Obamnation i cringe because of how i have heard it used before.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: CANDIDATE WITH REALISTIC POLICIES WINS (Hardcore libertarian tear bucket)
Those of us who believe in individual liberties did our mourning a very long time ago. I love how you equate authoritarianism with realism.
Xann wrote:
quote: Abomination is one of Vermonts favorite racial slurs actually, it doesn't signify any specific race but the mixture of races. When i hear Obamnation i cringe because of how i have heard it used before.
Never been to Vermont. Sounds like they have a signficantly different dialect of english than the rest of the country. Especially with that one particular word.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Must be a regional thing as I've never heard that before, nor have most other people in this thread. I highly doubt that most people understand it to be a racial slur.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Must be a regional thing as I've never heard that before, nor have most other people in this thread. I highly doubt that most people understand it to be a racial slur.
What i mean to point out is that alot of people may take it as a racial slur, just because "most other people" haven't heard it used that way, doesn't make them right. Orincoro seemed to just be pointing this out, if any proof was needed, listen to ignorant Vermonters.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Pix, I've heard 'abomination' used in a racial context as well, specifically referring to biracial people.
It was used historically in that manner too. It has mostly fallen out of disuse today in the same way that racism has gone very underground for the most part. But those who still harbor racial resentment will see the racial context in it.
To be honest, I missed it too until Orincoro pointed it out. Now that he has I can see it.
I dunno if that meaning was intended by those who initiated its use or not. But Orincoro is right, the meaning is there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
To a degree, I think many people have used the word without this intent, but they have certainly benefited from that particular connotation in establishing it as a meme. Being sensitive to that reality seems important to me.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Having political debates with libertarians is much like having a religious debate with a Scientologist. Orincoro, take note.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
Is it? I've heard both people for and against Obama using that term.
Of course, generally, the pro-Obama (Probama?) people are using it as a play on Obama Nation AND abomination.
You've heard Obama supporters using "Obama Nation"? I find that really really hard to believe. To the best of my knowlegde, the phrase originated with the book "Obama Nation" by Jerome Corsi, which is decidely NOT pro-Obama. Corse said his purpose in writing the book was to defeat Obama.
According to factcheck.org, the book is ""a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods." One of the central claims of the book is that Obama is a closet Muslim, which is at its heart a racist accusation.
Ask yourself this, if Obama was white and went by the name Barry O'Bama, would this question would ever have been raised? Would the accusation that he was a "terrorist" ever have been made by anyone other than the certifiably crazy?
Have you ever wondered why no one ever asks whether McCain, whose family hails from Ulster, supported the UDA/UFF or whether Biden, who has Irish Catholic roots, ever supported the IRA? Yet Obama, whose father was from a farming family in Kenya, an area with no history of terrorists paramilitary organization, gets accused of links to terrorists?
Please don't misunderstand me, there are plenty of legitimate non- racist reasons why someone might not want Obama to be President. I'm confident that most of the people who will vote against Obama come Tuesday will do so for non-racist reasons. I am however bothered by the fact that so many people are either naively ignorant of the racist undertones of many of the attacks made on Obama or willing to tolerate them for political expediency.
[ November 02, 2008, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
Is it? I've heard both people for and against Obama using that term.
Of course, generally, the pro-Obama (Probama?) people are using it as a play on Obama Nation AND abomination.
You've heard Obama supporters using "Obama Nation"? I find that really really hard to believe.
Believe it. Being an Obama supporter myself, I come by my knowledge first hand.
Now, whether the people who use it positively are doing so because they appropriated it from the conservatives, I don't know.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
If Barack Obama nukes New York, or any city in America, I will regret voting for him.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I have heard abomination used many times as a biracial derogatory term. I grew up in and spent a lot of time in New England, mostly Maine -- maybe it is regional.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I grew up in Maine, I've never heard the term used specifically referring to race, but I can understand the potential for racial undertones.
That being said, the particular example of 'Obamanation' has absolutely no connection with racial objections. The entire argument is ridiculous. Is everyone who's voting Republican somehow living in 1880?
The most hardcore right-wing nut jobs that do object to race aren't even seeing him as a half-black candidate, but rather, they're refusing to even consider 'levels of blackness.' That, or they just think of him as a Muslim. I don't know why this is such a point of contention, but really, let it go.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: If Barack Obama nukes New York, or any city in America, I will regret voting for him.
LOL.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sharpie, are you sure you are not thinking of the word, "amalgamation," rather than "abomination"?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What I am claiming however, is that people are using "Obamanation" as a racial epithet. I believe that.
Then you're dumb. Because no one is using it that way. It's a ridiculous thing to claim. Your reason for claiming it is dumb. I do not believe that the foulest racist cracker out there is using the term that way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That's quite the claim based on what evidence?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe there are some people out there using it that way. See #14.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sharpie, are you sure you are not thinking of the word, "amalgamation," rather than "abomination"?
Oh, I am sure I'm not thinking of amalgamation.
Well, I wasn't, but now I have the word stuck in my head. Dang it!
(Definitely abomination.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Amalgamationist" was the word most often used to attack abolitionists before "miscegenation" became a buzz attackword. Back in the 19th century. It's pretty archaic by today's standards though. "Abomination" to my knowledge doesn't have much of a major history with reference to bi-racial issues. In every history book I've read, it's been one of the two I mentioned at the top.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
How come the Abominable Snowman is always white?
furism.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That's just snow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Says racially charged.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Those of us who believe in individual liberties did our mourning a very long time ago. I love how you equate authoritarianism with realism.
Your definition of 'authoritarianism' includes things like "taxation" and terrible rights-crushing things like "free public education made available to all children" and "regulatory oversight of business" so I am going to consider it a tad more realistic than the non-aggression principle alternative.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<snicker>
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, it does weaken your claim regarding Orincoro's dumbness.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's okay, she'll come to the table when she's ready.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I always take my definitional cues from the OED, given that my English teachers and professors have drilled it into my head that it's the authoritative dictionary of the English language. Here are (all) the definitions of abomination, according to it:
1. The feeling or state of mind of combined disgust and hatred; abhorrence, detestation, loathing.
quote: 1395 PURVEY Remonstr. (1851) 7 Alle resonable men have greet abhominacioun of bodili sodomie. 1483 CAXTON G. Leg. 431 [He] vysyted the hospytalles..wythout abhomynacion of dyfformyte ne of ordure or fylthe of somme pacyente. 1525-30 MORE De quat. Nouis. Wks. 1557, 96 We se gret cause to haue it in hatred & abominacion. 1611 BIBLE 1 Sam. xiii. 4 Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. Mod. To regard smoking with abomination.
b. Physical disgust, nausea. [So in early Fr.] Obs.
quote:1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. (1495) VII. viii. 228 Yf gedynes comyth of the stomak the pacyent felyth abhomynacion and wamlynge.
2. A state or condition giving rise to intense disgust; defilement, pollution, abominableness. Obs.
quote:1413 LYDGATE Pylg. Sowle (1483) III. i. 49 What stynke and corrupcion what fylthe and abhomynacion is there withynne the helle. 1480 Rob. the Devyll 31 I desyre youe to heare my confession Of my greate synnes the abhomynacon.
3. An action, or custom, abominable, detestable, odious, shamefully wicked or vile; a degrading vice.
quote:c1325 E.E. Allit. P. B. 1173 (1864) 73 He vsed abominaciones of idolatrye. c1386 CHAUCER Man of Law's T. 88 He..Wolde never wryte in non of his sermouns Of such unkynde abhominaciouns. 1494 FABYAN VI. clxxxi. 180 Ye great abhomynacion of thyse tyranous Danys, that beat, robbed, and slewe ye innosent people without mercy. 1549 LATIMER 7 Serm. bef. Edw. VI (1869) 207 What an abhominacion is it? the foulest that euer was to attribute to mans worke oure saluacion. 1606 SHAKES. Ant. & Cl. III. vi. 94 Th' adulterous Anthony, most large In his abhominations. 1611 BIBLE Mal. ii. 11 An abomination is committed in Israel. 1682 BURNET Rts. of Princes v. 159 He was not guilty of these monstrous Abominations. 1852 C. M. YONGE Cameos (1877) III. xxiii. 355 Ninety-five theses, many of which were directed against the special abominations of Tetzel.
4. An object that excites disgust and hatred; a thing detested or detestable. (Followed by unto, to.) esp. in the Bible, a cause of pollution, an idol.
quote:1366 MANDEVILLE (1839) xxviii. 282 Fro him comethe out smoke and stynk and fuyr, and so moche Abhomynacioun, that unethe no man may there endure. 1382 WYCLIF Matt. xxiv. 15 {Ygh}e schulen se the abhomynacioun of discomfort that is seid of Danyel, the prophete. 1535 COVERDALE 2 Kings xxiii. 13 Malcom the abhominacion of the children of Ammon. 1611 BIBLE Prov. xii. 22 Lying lippes are abomination to the Lord. 1794 SULLIVAN View of Nat. II. Nor was it until the days of Hezekiah..that this abomination [the brazen serpent] was torn from the land. 1856 KANE Arctic Explor. II. v. 59 Brewed up flax-seed and lime-juice and quinine and willow-stems into an abomination which was dignified as beer.
5. loosely. An unpleasant or disgusting amount, etc. Obs.
quote:1604 DEKKER Honest Wh. (1873) 8, I ha spent an abomination this voyage.
I'm not seeing anything in there that is racially charged.
For those of you who dislike the idea of the Brits controlling the language, here's the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is the main American English dictionary that my university's library links to:
abominable: 1 : worthy of or causing disgust or hatred : detestable <the abominable treatment of the poor> 2 : quite disagreeable or unpleasant <abominable weather>
Personally, I have never heard abominable being used in a racially charged way (grew up on in CA, now live in NoVa). If two major dictionaries - one considered the most authoritative from all English experts I've spoke to - don't give any indication that it's a racially-charged word, I think it's unfair to call it a racially-charged word without any qualifiers. If you want to say it's got racial connotations in specific region, or where you grew up, or what have you, that's one thing. Expecting the rest of the English-speaking world to agree to your region's dialect's definitions is going a bit too far.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wikipedia says the book is racially charged, but does not claim that the term itself is.
While I don't think that everything Lisa has said in this thread is awesome, and I'm normally in agreement with most of what Orincoro posts, I think the claim that "abomination" is a racial slur is stupid. And I say this as a mixed-race person, married to someone of yet another ethnicity, and with several subscriptions to list servs and publications that explicitly deal with racial & mixed-race topics.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
It really doesn't matter if the dictionry says a word is racially charged or not, it is, and historically has been racially charged. While it has not been used in a racial way by anyone on this thread it is being used in that way, just because you don't want to see a word as racially inclined doesn't mean it is not.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Is this like Romney's "tar baby" comment from a couple of years ago.
Xann - that is is racially charged is still up for debate. At most it was used that way in a small area of the country...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wikipedia says the book is racially charged, but does not claim that the term itself is.
It doesn't occur to you that the racially charged qualities of the book (I don't attest to them as I haven't read it), could lend that connotation to the word? Something doesn't have to be in a dictionary to have that particular meaning, and the word "obamanation" is not the same word as "abomination," we're just comparing the two to see what we find.
Again, the word we are talking about as a racial slur is "Obamanation" and not "abomination." A does not equal B, does not equal C.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: It really doesn't matter if the dictionary says a word is racially charged or not, it is, and historically has been racially charged. While it has not been used in a racial way by anyone on this thread it is being used in that way, just because you don't want to see a word as racially inclined doesn't mean it is not.
Okay. So the term "bong" in Indian English can be used to refer to the Bengali ethnicity in a slightly derogatory manner - I know at least some of the older generation wouldn't care to be referred to in that manner. Does that mean that if you make some sort of reference to "bong" and my husband (who is Bengali), you're making a racially charged reference? Despite the fact that "bong" is used in that way in only one part of the English-speaking world? Because Indians use that word in that way, "bong" is now & forever a racially derogatory term when used by any English speaker?
I'm sorry, I don't really buy it. If you can't point me towards one credible, authoritative source that shows an accepted, widespread understanding of the word as racially charged, then it is generally not racially charged. That doesn't mean it can't be in certain times or places - just that you shouldn't call it racially charged anymore than I should call your use of the word "bong" as racially charged. Abominable has not met this standard.
Orincoro - it is quite possible that the book may make the term obmanation into a racially-charged term - but given that I haven't seen any media coverage of it, I'm doubtful. And given that you haven't even read the book, I don't think that was your reasoning when you called out Lisa. And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.*** If someone tells me that "socks" is an evil derogatory term, and I shouldn't use it, I'm sure as hell not going to listen to them unless they give me some reason besides "because it is!!!"
***Note: I'm referring to words that already exist. New words become invented all the time, and of course, they can have a known meaning before they make it to the dictionary. And slang is constantly changing - but you don't get to call someone out for not knowing your particular in-group's slang.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: That doesn't mean it can't be in certain times or places - just that you shouldn't call it racially charged anymore than I should call your use of the word "bong" as racially charged. Abominable has not met this standard.
Although i don't know of any way to use the word "bong" other than for a noise or a "water pipe", i don't essentially see how your disagreeing with me. I'm not saying that abomination or Obamanation shouldn't be used, what i AM saying is that i have heard many times abomination used as a racial slur, I have also heard Obamanation used as a racial slur. Even if Obamanation isn't used in any racial way by anyone it is close to a word that in alot of minds is racial. Really when is the last time you heard someone say "niggardly"?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Xann., I don't think you're understanding me, since I am fundamentally disagreeing with you.
Let's say you made a joke about my husband using a bong, or combined his name (Abhi) with "bong" - like "Abh-ong". Maybe your intention is just to say he's acting like a pot user - which he can when he's pigged out on chocolate cookies. Or whatever. Anyways, would I be right in saying that you're using a racially-charged word, or that saying "Abhong" is a racial slur? After all, in Indian English it would be.
According to your logic, because one subset of English-speakers recognize the word "bong" as an ethnic slur, your language would be racially-charged, despite the fact that you don't mean it as a slur, don't know it's racial-charged, doesn't have a history of widespread use as a racially-charged, and it isn't recognized as a racial slur in any of the authoritative dictionaries. That's exactly the status of "bong" as a racial slur and of "abomination". If you're saying one is a racial slur, then you're saying the other is, and you shouldn't use either.
The term "nigger" isn't at all an analogous situation, since it is widely recognized throughout the English-speaking world as a racial slur AND it is listed as a racial slur in any dictionary you check.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"If you're saying one is a racial slur, then you're saying the other is, and you shouldn't use either."
IF you think that the people calling Obama an "abomination" don't mean it racially...I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, in breaking news, the Moon is made of green cheese. I grew up and live around people like that. I know what they mean. I seriously doubt you know enough of the kind of people I do to speak from experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure that Pix doesn't "mean it racially."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
There's one Pix...and there's 10 frickin' million rednecks. So...yeah, it's racial. Nobody ever seriously questioned that fact, if they actually know a lot of people who are
A. against Obama
B. against Obama because he's black.
I do know such people, believe me. I guarantee there are more that use it racially than ones that don't.
Posted by Kilgore Trout (Member # 11801) on :
Obamanation may or may not be racially charged, but you can say the same thing with McLame.
McLame has nothing to do with McDonald's and corporate greed. It has everything to do with the fact that McCain is an old, lame, white dude, while Obama is a "cool", hip, young, black man.
This is one reason why I believe a pseudo-Bradley effect may take place tommorrow. It is not directly tied to race, but a lot of people may say they are voting for Obama because that is the "cool" thing to do, but when it actually comes down to it they might vote McCain.
Either way, Obama will still win short of a miracle. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama is the messiah and is the final decision-maker on miracles.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, I voted for Obama. I voted for every last Dem on the frickin' ballot. When I got to the back, where all the non-partisan offices were listed, I voted for women whenever I could. The only exception was when one of my former male classmates showed up on the school board list. I voted for him.
There wasn't any damn "reverse Bradley effect" going on with me.
Also, to anybody who says "McLame" is racist...have you been taking your meds? Talk about reaching.
I'm not saying Obama would be a better President. I don't know for sure, but the men he seems to be lining up as his close advisors, Colin Powell ( who has boatloads of integrity and foreign policy and military creds) and Joe Biden (an older, wiser head, with more foreign policy experience), look really good to me. I once read that a Presidency succeeds or fails based on the quality of the advisors and Cabinet. As long as I see Obama plus those two guys, I'm thinking we might end up doing OK.
Posted by Kilgore Trout (Member # 11801) on :
I don't actually think McLame is racist. My previous post was just to prove the point that this nickname arguing is pointless. All this thread is doing is causing people to pointlessly argue over some stupid nicknames.
Tommorrow, we will elect a new President. Maybe the new President will be good, maybe the new President will be bad. All you can do is read up on the candidates and vote on who you think will be the best president, even though your vote will most likely make no difference.
These last few months, I have watched the election play out and I get frustrated or irritated or downright mad at what I see. But I don’t have any control over it and at times, especially at that initial knee-jerk moment, I wish I had control. Then things begin to settle, mainly my thoughts, and I remember why I love this country. I don’t have any real control, so complaints will fall on deaf ears. That is something that I am okay with. There’s just no real reason for me to get mad about something that I have no control over the results in.
When it comes down to it, this country has given me so much more than I have given it. Obviously I don't always agree with the way our government is run, but I have no control over who wins the election tommorrow, and if you are reading this post, I'm guessing you have equally little control. Do what you want, say what you want, and conduct yourself in any manner in which you please. But at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what good complaining on Hatrack will do? Obviously it helps you vent your frustration towards the government. But why are you so frustrated with something you can’t control, and frankly something you wouldn’t be any better at? I guess to me this forum is about enjoying something I can’t control with people who understand that they can’t control it either. It’s about a love of a country that gives us so much, we feel the need to stand up for it at all times.
Although I have barely posted on Hatrack, know that I have read these forums the last couple weeks and that I thank everyone here who has particpated in respectful debates. Now lets get back to arguing over something that matters.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Wrapping yourself in the flag much?
I believe it was Samuel Johnson who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Here's a quote from an online essay. I don't know if it's accurate, but it's funny.
-----"After Dr. Johnson said patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel, the cynic Ambrose Bierce amended it with, "I beg to submit that it is the first." Then H.L. Mencken jumped in: "But there is something even worse: it is the first, last and middle range of fools.""-----
Posted by Kilgore Trout (Member # 11801) on :
Of course if I told you that I voted for Obama then your response to my posts will be totally different...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Trollest me thou? Begone!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
And thus with teh Word of Power was the interloper thrust back into the novel whence he came!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Kilgore.
But please enlighten me about one thing. I've always wondered at the thought processes of those who say how futile it is to post on internet fora while doing the same thing themselves. I mean, are you exempt or what? Do you get a pass due to Utilitarianism or inner wisdom or something?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Indeed. At first I was like "Am I being mocked? Which novel?", thinking LOTR, or something. I'm proud to say it only took about 2 seconds to realize you meant Mr. Vonnegut's.
Posted by Kilgore Trout (Member # 11801) on :
Sorry for the confusion. The last couple of posts were a melting pot of thoughts and may have been hard to understand.
1. Internet forums are very good places to meet a multitude of different people with different background in order to understand different points of view.
2. This American tear bucket topic is pointless. Regardless of whether or not the candidate we support wins the election, it is important to support the next President and hope that he pleasantly suprises you. Of course it is frustrating if your candidate does not win, but that's democracy. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Although you may think Obama will be an abomination or Mccain will be lame, once your emotions settle down it's important to work towards improving the country and the world. 10% of life is what happens. The other 90% is what you do after it happens.
Eventually, we may all be able to ride off on our unicorns to the gumdrop forest where the economy is fixed and money grows on trees.
(Incidentally, I once wrote a book on money trees. It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer. So it goes.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.***
This is categorically incorrect. English is not a standardized language. As such, there are many, many accepted forms of it spoken throughout the world. The use of a single word for a single purpose is valid even between two people. On a larger scale, a word can come to have a new shade of meaning very quickly, and its validity is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no official English language, and no official English dictionary. Thus, there is no ultimate authority, other than that of common use.
I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kilgore Trout: This is one reason why I believe a pseudo-Bradley effect may take place tommorrow. It is not directly tied to race, but a lot of people may say they are voting for Obama because that is the "cool" thing to do, but when it actually comes down to it they might vote McCain.
Either way, Obama will still win short of a miracle. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama is the messiah and is the final decision-maker on miracles.
So, he wins because of the reverse-Bradley effect... oh no wait he wins because "black people are cool." Yeah, 130 million voters all responding to Ghetto Culture. Makes total sense.
So how long have you been a racist?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.***
This is categorically incorrect. English is not a standardized language. As such, there are many, many accepted forms of it spoken throughout the world. The use of a single word for a single purpose is valid even between two people. On a larger scale, a word can come to have a new shade of meaning very quickly, and its validity is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no official English language, and no official English dictionary. Thus, there is no ultimate authority, other than that of common use.
I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
I didn't make a claim about anyone else; I said what I'll accept. I DO think people are foolish if they expect others to accept and know their regional dialects as always valid in any general context, and I'll gladly point out such foolishness. The use of abomination as a racial slur is a regional dialect, and it's silly to expect people to not use the word just 'cause you think it's racially-charged, when this is far from a widely-accepted understanding of the word.
Do you use the word "bong"? Don't you know it's a racially-charged word in India? How can you use such language? </sarcasm>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:This <whatever> topic is pointless.
Hi! Welcome to the Internet!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
What false premise? You said "'Obamanation' is a racial epithet." All you've managed to muster in support of that claim is that it has been used as a racial epithet in certain circumstances. Of course, saying that it has been used as a racial epithet does not imply that it is a racial epithet. To show that it is a racial epithet you would have to establish that it is used in a racial manner often enough that any usage of the word should immediately be suspected as racial.
Posted by Kilgore Trout (Member # 11801) on :
I am sorry for using sarcasm in my posts. I understand that this is an important election and that people are very tense and easily aggitated right now. I apologize if I came off as inflammatory to anyone. Please remember though that while it may be easy to throw personal insults at people from the safety of your computer, there is always someone on another computer who is hurt by these attacks.
Bye!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To be fair to the Fish it did kinda sound like a witty form of sarcasm, albeit a difficult to parse one, it wouldve parsed better with a smiley.
Threads, the false premise is that NO ONE uses the word as a racial epithet which Pixiest claimed and is obviously wrong about.
I see 2 usages: Obama Nation as in the "Obama<space>Nation in reference to the wave of enthusiastic support for Obama's candidancy and policies. This is the "Pro" and not bad usage.
And 2:
Obamanation as in Obama+Abomination which to me IS a racist term, or at least heavily derogatory and rude, in reference to either extreme libertarian belief that Obama will bring Socialism and thsu the destruction of USA thus referring to his "policies" and the more racial term referring to his mixed background.
REGARDLESS of whether you think it racist if it is USED in a derogatory basis its barely in my view 1 step below racist. More so then Negro as apposed to the "N-word".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I see 2 usages: Obama Nation as in the "Obama<space>Nation in reference to the wave of enthusiastic support for Obama's candidancy and policies. This is the "Pro" and not bad usage.
It doesn't split that easily since the book "Obama Nation" is unquestionable an anti-Obama racial charged screed.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My main problem with this was the immediate calling-out of "Obamanation" as a racial epithet. If Orincoro had said, "you know, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that term, 'cause I've seen 'abomination' used as a racial slur" that'd be one thing. I'd probably avoid using the term just because I like to be polite (also, I'm an Obama supporter), despite the fact that I've never come across anything that would lead me to believe abomination is a racial epithet. Maybe we could have gotten into an interesting discussion about regional variations in language or something.
But I don't like it when people try to control others' language usage. No one wants to be labeled a racist, just like no one wants to be labeled unpatriotic. It's not cool when someone says I'm unpatriotic for criticizing Bush, and it's not cool when someone says a thing is racist when, really, there's absolutely no reason to believe the term is widely accepted as a racial slur.
Now, if you want to say I'm unpatriotic for calling for the nuking of the US (which I'm not, FYI), or if you want to say it's racist to use the word "nigger", that's another kettle of fish entirely. Because, of course, these actions are widely recognized as being unpatriotic & racist.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)