Expect more race baiting as things get worse for him. If he gets the races biting at each other they are much less likely to see the giant tax dildo he’s lubing up for everyone.

“(though I’ve added the “more than Africa” part because it fits with the context)”

That changes the interpretation to the AllaSpin version. You can not say “I agree with the words you’re saying” then change them to something else. That is so NOT agreeing.

Your support for the AllaSpin version is fine, just not what I have been discussing. If you don’t want to discuss my interpretation, that’s fine too. Don’t.

But the fact remains that the most reasonable interpretation of Obama’s comment is “African Americans have a special connection with America that other more recent immigrants do not share”.

At this time in this culture that is offensive in about the same way that wise latina is offensive. Apparently in your mind adding the phrase “more than Africa” renders it harmless. Unfortunately for you he did not add that himself.

would not be common sense, that it might be somewhat offensive, that immigrants who come to America for opportunity and liberty have an American connection not shared by those who disdain them …

No, I wouldn’t and have stated as much so many times here already in ways that, again, you’ve said you won’t even read.

Once again, not sharing in this connection, has nothing to do with one’s attitude. It’s about a shared history. Mexicans have it with Mexican AND America, but most blacks only have it with America and not Africa.

And his comment obviously shows no disdain for recent immigrants as his own father was one, making him a second generation immigrant, the very group he was talking about having less of a connection than blacks.

I agree with the words you’re saying he said (though I’ve added the “more than Africa” part because it fits with the context), but I disagree with how you’re interpreting what that means. To do so, I have also included other parts of Obama’s statement out of necessity.

Because that is a valid interpretaion of Obama’s comment. You may wish he had said it differently, you may think he meant to, but he didn’t.

No. You claimed my interpretation, clearly stated, was just common sense and obvious and therefore should not be the least bit offensive to anybody.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM

And then I further explained what I meant by that.

See, I didn’t (and don’t) consider it just your interpretation. I’ve agreed that’s what he meant and said so as much as possible here, even giving examples that apparently you won’t even bother to read.

Yes I understand the AllaSpin interpretaion already.

No, that’s my interpretation. I’m not parroting Allah.

Up until your last attempt to change the subject (again) that is what WE have been talking about.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM

I don’t know what makes you think I’ve been trying to change the conversation, but apparently you think you can set the strict rules as whatever you say they are, in which case I’m not being given a chance to discuss this with you anyway.

“I thought the topic was whatever he actually meant.”

No. You claimed my interpretation, clearly stated, was just common sense and obvious and therefore should not be the least bit offensive to anybody.

“Than the African one”

Yes I understand the AllaSpin interpretaion already. If Obama had added those words that would be the ONLY reasonable interpretation, but he did not. That leaves the words he did say, and the most reasonable intepretation of the words he did say is: “African Americans have a special connection with America that other more recent immigrants do not share”.

Up until your last attempt to change the subject (again) that is what WE have been talking about.

When the topic is my interpretaion of those words … I most certainly do.

Not unless you’re saying I have to agree with you. I thought the topic was whatever he actually meant.

I have no interest in your intepretation and have not challenged it.

Then how else am I supposed to counter your idea that it’s offensive?

You have challenged mine however as either common sense or obvious or beside the point. You don’t get to redefine my words or change the subject (unless you want to abandon the issue and pretend to have settled it).

boris on July 20, 2009 at 11:47 PM

I’m trying only to talk directly on the subject by explaining my view. How else am I supposed to be talking to you about this?

I have no idea what you want out of this.

No, I don’t, but then neither do you.”

When the topic is my interpretaion of those words … I most certainly do.

Whatever Obama “really” meant, my interpretaion of what he said: “African Americans have a special connection with America that other more recent immigrants do not share”.

I say that is comparably offensive as wise latina because it is neither common sense nor obvious, in fact it is obviously not true. I have no interest in your intepretation and have not challenged it. You have challenged mine however as either common sense or obvious or beside the point. You don’t get to redefine my words or change the subject (unless you want to abandon the issue and pretend to have settled it).

Oh dear … I’ve offended you. And I thought we were on such close wavelength that I could leave off the smiley face. My bad. So sorry.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM

It is a childish insult. I got that you were going with something there and said as much earlier, but, because your word choice is an insult, and not even a covert one, the comparison falls flat.

But again, I’m not offended. I rarely say what I don’t mean. If I’m offended, it’ll be obvious.

The topic between us is my interpretation of his words, not yours.

Or rather my interpretation of his words.

He said: “African-Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience ..”

Than the African one, in contrast to recent immigrants who are more connected to their former “homelands”.

YOU don’t get to define what Obama’s words mean and you sure don’t get to say what my interpretaion of those words mean.

No, I don’t, but then neither do you.

My interpretation is as I’ve been saying it is. And to put it more plainly, I’ll give examples. There was a time when black Americans were more Afro-centric, but when you compare their sudden interest in African masks, clothes and names to Mexicans and their affection for Mexico, including the language, food and various holidays, the former looks more like a fad, while the latter looks like an identity and a way of life.

That many Mexicans come to this country with pride, a desire to succeed and even fight to protect this country has nothing to do with the above.

Granted, Africans who were brought here weren’t given much of a choice. Had they immigrated by choice as free men, it’s entirely possible that they’d be just like the Mexicans and that we’d have African restaurants and Little Africa in every major city. But they didn’t, and thus, their history is far more tied to the United States.

Even descendants of the first white Americans are more likely to have a more firm connection to the country they came from. My father has a family tree that’s been passed down to the eldest son in his family for generations. I know that my ancestor Pat came over on a boat in the 1800s. It’s unlikely that even one descendant of a slave has that, not just because American enslaved them but also because these slaves were slaves in their own homeland.

That is my interpretation of what Obama has said, expanded almost as fully as I can expand it. I see it as an interpretation of history through the lens of common sense and see no problem with it and do not understand why anyone would.

“attitude has nothing to do with it”

Oh BS. The topic between us is my interpretation of his words, not yours. Maybe you really are an idiot :-).

He said: “African-Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience ..”

It so happens that opportunity and liberty are the American experience immigrants come here to enjoy. It also happens those are often what African Americans disdain. YOU don’t get to define what Obama’s words mean and you sure don’t get to say what my interpretaion of those words mean.

childish insults

Oh dear … I’ve offended you. And I thought we were on such close wavelength that I could leave off the smiley face. My bad. So sorry.

Why not sponsor a future co-ed hottie on her quest to get a degree?

The Race Card on July 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Maybe, but women who trade on their looks rarely get people interested in their brains.

Whereas a hot woman getting boobs is only making her hotter.

Interesting link, btw. I have heard that in lower education there is a high correlation between success and attendance.

If a kid wants to take some easy class for his GPA and doesn’t care about learning, then that says as much about the student as anything.

Maybe, maybe not. A good student will learn no matter the teacher. An easier class just means less of a chance at messing up their grades.

I am 1000% against this idea of having AP classes being out of a 5. That’s crazy.

Really? I couldn’t tell. :)

I took my AP exams in 10th grade so I didn’t take this all into account.

I wonder if we’re talking about the same classes. AP classes weren’t even available for people in my school until their junior or senior year.

But, if I go to a normal school that only gives A’s (4.0) even for AP classes, then these other schools are jacking up their grades at my expense. It’s cheating, basically, and goes a long way to kill any standardization of scoring – which is somethign that liberals are always attempting to do.

What makes you think any schools do this? It’s fairly standard.

Besides, even if one didn’t, colleges would know that and be able to make adjustments just as easily as they can read a course description.

Then they have to change to top 5% or top 2%. That’s not a difficult problem, but I’ll bet that the percentages can’t be changed for all sorts of racial reasons.

Beats me. I think it’s a stupid law anyway. Who says all students in the top ten percent are any better in college? Maybe they all took easy classes and padded their grades.

If as many people are scoring 1600 (or just above 1500) as you claim, then the test is not hard enough.

progressoverpeace on July 20, 2009 at 8:25 PM

I’ve heard a mixture of opinions, that being one of them. It’s supposed to be an aptitude test, but it seems to rely more on memorization.

Why not sponsor a future co-ed hottie on her quest to get a degree?

The Race Card on July 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Does our wife know about this plan?

I just also believe there are enough black students who score that high as well. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but there’s a reason schools want more information, and it isn’t just because of standardized testing issues.

Right on. Dr. Benjamin Chavis of AIPHS agrees with you.

Liberals typically do not believe that Blacks, Latinos and women (to a lesser degree) would succeed without the point shaving, horse-doping, logic that comes with affirmative action.

Conservatives are willing to let the cream rise regardless of the skin tone.

I think one of the main barriers to success is the understanding of America’s boundless resources. Even during a recession, good students of all backgrounds can find a good school and money with which to pay for it. It is a matter of diligent research.

Also, some women are bold enough to ask total strangers to pay for their boob jobs. Why not sponsor a future co-ed hottie on her quest to get a degree?

progressoverpeace on July 20, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Good stuff.

Oh really. You are obviously an idiot then. Hope that’s not offensive or anything.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM

And now you want to compare childish insults that are meant to cause offense to his statement?

Yeah, I can’t possibly take offensive at that. I find it humorous.

And so is “wise latina”.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM

No, it really isn’t. That comment made no logical sense and was completely offensive.

Had she said, “wise latinas tend to know Spanish” it wouldn’t have been a problem, as that would be both logical an inoffensive.

It’s been mentioned before on this thread that many immigrants who come here (legally), appreciate the opportunities and liberty of America (regardless of their skin color) do better than those born here (of any heritage) who disdain eduacation, deny opportunity, and abuse their liberties. So no. It is not common sense or obvious by a long shot.

boris on July 20, 2009 at 8:20 PM

You’re missing a major point which is that attitude has nothing to do with it. It’s not about how much someone loves this country or that someone would fight for it. Culture has nothing to do with any of that.

It’s not even about being “good” or “bad” Americans. It’s just about one’s connection to this country and a lack of a connection to the country you came from. That’s it.

I disagree. I see it as a way of encouraging high achievers to take classes they’d otherwise avoid because it would ruin their GPAs.

There’s no similar motivation for other classes.

Students don’t need to be given special GPA considerations in order to entice them to take AP courses. This is the totally wrong way of thinking. If a kid wants to take some easy class for his GPA and doesn’t care about learning, then that says as much about the student as anything. I am 1000% against this idea of having AP classes being out of a 5. That’s crazy.

You apply for college mid senior year. You take AP tests in the summer. So, at that point, it is only about college credit.

My mistake, Esthier. I took my AP exams in 10th grade so I didn’t take this all into account. In any event, the course description of AP should be enough for colleges to make the distinction, instead of adding grade points – which places other schools at a disadvantage, right?

When I went to high school, this sort of silliness was not around. I never felt that I deserved more GPA points for taking harder classes. I took the hardest classes that were available because I enjoyed them.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. If anything, it’s more of an equalizer so that it gives over-achievers a way to gain GPA points, and because those people are competing against each other, the extra points only mean perfection isn’t 4.0.

In other words, it’s another way to stand out, and at top tier colleges, it’s necessary as you won’t be able to get a 4.5 otherwise.

But, if I go to a normal school that only gives A’s (4.0) even for AP classes, then these other schools are jacking up their grades at my expense. It’s cheating, basically, and goes a long way to kill any standardization of scoring – which is somethign that liberals are always attempting to do.

Besides, in Texas the state schools are a little different. Any student in the top ten percent gets automatic admission, which has meant that many people with just high SAT scores (without the grades to match) can’t get in simply because there are too many top ten percenters in already.

Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Then they have to change to top 5% or top 2%. That’s not a difficult problem, but I’ll bet that the percentages can’t be changed for all sorts of racial reasons.

If as many people are scoring 1600 (or just above 1500) as you claim, then the test is not hard enough. That might be true as they have had to make adjustments for all sorts of illusory cultural problems. I’d have to see the real numbers to make a real judgment about this.

Yeah. It’s common sense.

And so is “wise latina”.

And I don’t see how a statement of the obvious can ever be offensive.

Oh really. You are obviously an idiot then. Hope that’s not offensive or anything.