George Takei’s Endorsement Of Barack Obama

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Oct 07, 2012 6:09 AM GMT

    George Takei’s Endorsement Of Barack Obama

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/watch-george-takeis-endorsement-of-barack-obama-will-make-you-cry/politics/2012/10/06/50414

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2012 6:31 AM GMT
    This guy was hilarious on Celebrity Apprentice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2012 7:00 AM GMT
    Barry just laughs at this kind of thing, and so he should. He knows that the Lefty queers are mere pawns in his game.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2012 7:28 PM GMT
    noren saidBarry just laughs at this kind of thing, and so he should. He knows that the Lefty queers are mere pawns in his game.



    golden-girls-haters.gif
  • Buddha

    Posts: 1766

    Oct 07, 2012 7:35 PM GMT
    I love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 08, 2012 7:56 AM GMT
    noren saidBarry just laughs at this kind of thing, and so he should. He knows that the Lefty queers are mere pawns in his game.


    The rest of us just laugh at reactionary right-wing queers who comment on videos they haven't watched, as we should.

    Mr. Takei is spot on; these house gays are beneath contempt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    Just another race-baiting ad, referring to "his people" (In this case "Asians") as some "collective" that needs to support a candidate who ostensibly cares about "asians" as being some particular "race" that should be given some sort of acknowledgement and special recognition or support.

    The sooner people can stop focusing on groups of people based on race and start talking about how we can improve our situation as Americans who want to thrive in a country of opportunity then the sooner racism can die in this country -- but until then racism will keep thriving as long as the racial distinction is pointed out and dwelt upon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 5:20 PM GMT
    bostonsam said
    mocktwinkles saidJust another race-baiting ad, referring to "his people" (In this case "Asians") as some "collective" that needs to support a candidate who ostensibly cares about "asians" as being some particular "race" that should be given some sort of acknowledgement and special recognition or support.

    The sooner people can stop focusing on groups of people based on race and start talking about how we can improve our situation as Americans who want to thrive in a country of opportunity then the sooner racism can die in this country -- but until then racism will keep thriving as long as the racial distinction is pointed out and dwelt upon.


    I agree.


    If any "white" person made an equivalent ad about how "caucasians" should support Mitt Romney in the context of pointing out racial affinity (as in the case of this video), there would be the biggest shitstorm you've ever seen calling it the most "racist" thing ever.

    Gays still have a right to talk about the orientation distinction because we are a disenfranchised community without equal recognized benefits. No other group or race of people are discriminated against by any kind of law. Asians have the same equal opportunities that whites and every other race in this country does. Asians, in fact, are the wealthiest demographic in this country and it is absolutely outrageous that there would be some kind of ad casting them in a "disadvantaged" light.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 5:32 PM GMT
    I think it's legitimate for any group to capitalize on its own marginality to the extent it's politically feasible. It is certainly politically feasible for racial minorities to band together along racial lines in order to promote their common interests. Same thing with gays. This type of identity politics is perceived as JUST by most people because of all the shit that racial and sexual minorities have had to put up with since our country's founding.

    It is not politically feasible for white people to band together explicitly along racial lines to promote their common racial interests. This happens only implicitly now in the form of Tea Party rallies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 5:39 PM GMT
    field123 saidI think it's legitimate for any group to capitalize on its own marginality to the extent it's politically feasible. It is certainly politically feasible for racial minorities to band together along racial lines in order to promote their common interests. Same thing with gays. This type of identity politics is perceived as JUST by most people because of all the shit that racial and sexual minorities have had to put up with since our country's founding.

    It is not politically feasible for white people to band together explicitly along racial lines to promote their common racial interests. This happens only implicitly now in the form of Tea Party rallies.


    Wrong. Gays are denied equal rights BY LAW, therefore we are given no recourse but to point out the distinction of equal treatment. No particular race in this country is disenfranchised or denied the same equal rights by law because of how they look, therefore there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent "marginalization". If you can't point out one civil right that Asians or any other racial group is currently denied by law then you have no case.

    If it is okay for Asians to "band together" explicitly along racial lines then it is okay for whites as well. Asians are not marginalized, Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country proportionate to population.

    Either end the double-standard bullshit and apply the same disdain for racial "banding together" regardless of who does it or let everyone be as racially preferential as they want and quit complaining about it. You can't justifiably have both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 5:58 PM GMT
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned, from Palestine or Iraq or Iran and maybe even Pakistan you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:02 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".


    Great examples of marginalization, straight from the mouth of Mock. There's so much racism in your country we laugh at the pious posturing of you and boston SB et al.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:04 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles said
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".


    Great examples of marginalization, straight from the mouth of Mock. There's so much racism in your country we laugh at the pious posturing of you and boston SB et al.


    I'm explaining the way Americans usually look at it. Do I sense some attitude? I'm "posturing"?
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Oct 08, 2012 6:04 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".


    That may be in your neck of the woods, but as someone living in California with many friends from India, and people all over Asia, and being that we are part of the Pacific Rim, I don't think that happens as often as you are stating. Calling an asian oriental is insulting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:06 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    mocktwinkles said
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".


    That may be in your neck of the woods, but as someone living in California with many friends from India, and people all over Asia, and being that we are part of the Pacific Rim, I don't think that happens as often as you are stating. Calling an asian oriental is insulting.


    Not just in my "neck of the woods". I've been all over the USA and I have many friends in California and all over (including many Asian friends). And you are correct, that calling an asian "oriental" is often perceived as insulting, which is why the incorrect usage of "Asian" keeps being perpetuated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    Interesting ad, playing on the fact how people call Obama un-American, and George talks how they were treated in the same fashion as un-American. very interesting take on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    field123 saidI think it's legitimate for any group to capitalize on its own marginality to the extent it's politically feasible. It is certainly politically feasible for racial minorities to band together along racial lines in order to promote their common interests. Same thing with gays. This type of identity politics is perceived as JUST by most people because of all the shit that racial and sexual minorities have had to put up with since our country's founding.

    It is not politically feasible for white people to band together explicitly along racial lines to promote their common racial interests. This happens only implicitly now in the form of Tea Party rallies.


    Wrong. Gays are denied equal rights BY LAW, therefore we are given no recourse but to point out the distinction of equal treatment. No particular race in this country is disenfranchised or denied the same equal rights by law because of how they look, therefore there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent "marginalization". If you can't point out one civil right that Asians or any other racial group is currently denied by law then you have no case.

    If it is okay for Asians to "band together" explicitly along racial lines then it is okay for whites as well. Asians are not marginalized, Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country proportionate to population.

    Either end the double-standard bullshit and apply the same disdain for racial "banding together" regardless of who does it or let everyone be as racially preferential as they want and quit complaining about it. You can't justifiably have both.


    You didn't address anything that I said. I think people should engage in the type of politics they can get away with. If you want to engage in identity-politics to promote white interests, then you have the same moral right to do that as George Takei. My point is only that you will not have the same political acceptance because whites are not an historically oppressed group in America.

    Plus, your idea of what counts as a racial interest is too narrow. It doesn't matter if racial groups no longer face discrimination qua explicitly racist laws. Hispanic Americans can work to promote an interest in immigration reform while black Americans can promote expanded voter participation rights. These are legitimate political reform efforts that are intimately connected to racial interests.

    You said "there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent 'marginalization'", but that's not for you to decide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:15 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles said
    Buddha saidI love the fact that South Asia is never accounted for when people refer to Asians icon_lol.gif I mean come on, we're more than 20% of the world's population, give us some credit!


    Americans usually lump some "South Asians" in with "Middle-easterners" even if it isn't correct. Basically if you're not European white but darker skinned you're just "Middle Eastern". In the USA "asian" = oriental. Indians from India are also not considered Asian even though they are in Asia, they are just referred to as "Indians".


    Great examples of marginalization, straight from the mouth of Mock. There's so much racism in your country we laugh at the pious posturing of you and boston SB et al.


    I'm explaining the way Americans usually look at it. Do I sense some attitude? I'm "posturing"?


    Exactly, the way too many Americans look at it, yet you posted this,
    "Just another race-baiting ad, referring to "his people" (In this case "Asians") as some "collective" that needs to support a candidate who ostensibly cares about "asians" as being some particular "race" that should be given some sort of acknowledgement and special recognition or support. "

    Meanwhile in AZ the police can stop any brown person for any percieved driving infraction for example, and challenge their citizenship. How many whites has that been done to?

    Interracial marriage had to be forced on your country, and a bare, slight majority agreeing that it was OK in polls didn't happen til 1991.
    So do spare us the rhetoric. You can't know what it's like Mock til you walk a mile in their shoes. If there was a machine that could temporarily change your appearance to that of another race, I'd want you to try for a month with a couple of different races and see what happens out there and what it can be like. You're too short on empathy for any other process.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:25 PM GMT
    field123 said
    mocktwinkles said
    field123 saidI think it's legitimate for any group to capitalize on its own marginality to the extent it's politically feasible. It is certainly politically feasible for racial minorities to band together along racial lines in order to promote their common interests. Same thing with gays. This type of identity politics is perceived as JUST by most people because of all the shit that racial and sexual minorities have had to put up with since our country's founding.

    It is not politically feasible for white people to band together explicitly along racial lines to promote their common racial interests. This happens only implicitly now in the form of Tea Party rallies.


    Wrong. Gays are denied equal rights BY LAW, therefore we are given no recourse but to point out the distinction of equal treatment. No particular race in this country is disenfranchised or denied the same equal rights by law because of how they look, therefore there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent "marginalization". If you can't point out one civil right that Asians or any other racial group is currently denied by law then you have no case.

    If it is okay for Asians to "band together" explicitly along racial lines then it is okay for whites as well. Asians are not marginalized, Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in this country proportionate to population.

    Either end the double-standard bullshit and apply the same disdain for racial "banding together" regardless of who does it or let everyone be as racially preferential as they want and quit complaining about it. You can't justifiably have both.


    You didn't address anything that I said. I think people should engage in the type of politics they can get away with. If you want to engage in identity-politics to promote white interests, then you have the same moral right to do that as George Takei. My point is only that you will not have the same political acceptance because whites are not an historically oppressed group in America.

    Plus, your idea of what counts as a racial interest is too narrow. It doesn't matter if racial groups no longer face discrimination qua explicitly racist laws. Hispanic Americans can work to promote an interest in immigration reform while black Americans can promote expanded voter participation rights. These are legitimate political reform efforts that are intimately connected to racial interests.

    You said "there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent 'marginalization'", but that's not for you to decide.


    Au contraire, I addressed precisely the heart of what you said. You may "say" that it's just as morally acceptable for whites to promote their "racial interests" but you know very well that it would not be accepted as "okay", probably not even by yourself. Many "whites" have historically been disenfranchised as well, including Irish and Germans and Polish during different parts of our history in favor of English who identified more as "Americans" than the newcomers.

    You say that it doesn't matter if certain racial groups no longer face discrimination via "explicit" racial laws, but it does matter if we're talking about a legitimate case that one has as to why they are having a certain "challenge". Someone can claim disenfranchisement all they want but unless they can point out a civil right that they are being denied and prove that it is BECAUSE of their race then there is no real case. Just because you point out your race as a matter of circumstantial reality present in a particular challenge you may be going through doesn't make it the reason for that challenge.

    If a particular racial element is taken out of the equation then a hispanic/latino's "interest" in "immigration reform" has nothing to do with anything -- they aren't actually being disenfranchised because of race, at least not the people who are law abiding citizens and legally obtaining their citizenship. If a particular racial group faces an issue it's because of what they are doing and the circumstances surrounding that, not the color of their skin.

    The bottom line is that it's important to equally apply our views on racial tribalism. If we condemn one doing it then we should condemn all, if we don't mind if one or more does it then we shouldn't mind if they all do it. Either position makes no difference to me, just no double-standards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 6:29 PM GMT
    bostonsam, SB, on behalf of all the relatives and friends we have in the US, who matter to us,

    f*** you. icon_lol.gif
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 08, 2012 8:05 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidNo particular race in this country is disenfranchised or denied the same equal rights by law because of how they look, therefore there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent "marginalization". If you can't point out one civil right that Asians or any other racial group is currently denied by law then you have no case.


    Spoken like an entitled, ivory tower, elitist white boy whose every financial need is taken care of by his daddy.

    Honestly, if you think that disenfranchisement and discrimination only take place "by law" and that the disenfranchisement and discrimination people of every race and creed experience does not matter, then you are monumentally stupid. The house gays continue to reveal that they are complete dolts.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 08, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    bostonsam said

    What does his color/ethnicity have to do with it?

    Your injecting of race into this issue says a lot about you, and is probably why your relationship with a white guy went down in flames.


    You're a sock account which says a lot about you, and is probably why nobody gives a rat's behind what you think about this topic, their prior relationships, or anything at all.

    P.S. My white guy hates your racist guts. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    mocktwinkles saidNo particular race in this country is disenfranchised or denied the same equal rights by law because of how they look, therefore there's no reason for them to talk about their non-existent "marginalization". If you can't point out one civil right that Asians or any other racial group is currently denied by law then you have no case.


    Spoken like an entitled, ivory tower, elitist white boy whose every financial need is taken care of by his daddy.

    Honestly, if you think that disenfranchisement and discrimination only take place "by law" and that the disenfranchisement and discrimination people of every race and creed experience does not matter, then you are monumentally stupid. The house gays continue to reveal that they are complete dolts.


    The reason Oprah Winfrey is one of the most successful and richest women in the world isn't because she's black, it's because of a combination of her ingenuity and being at the right place at the right time enabling her to take advantage of the circumstance. By the same token, Zuckerberg didn't hit it big because he's Jew or white but because of something almost completely accidental -- his need/want for a girlfriend.