Discussion:
How long will America support the Obama lie of 1st black POTUS? Barack Obama is one sixteenth black.
(too old to reply)
vu
2015-05-24 22:13:26 UTC
Permalink
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Fragancia
2015-05-24 22:46:49 UTC
Permalink
One
Troll.
Charles H. Sampson
2015-05-25 15:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Very strange. He's never disputed his Kenyan father, which makes him
pretty close to 50% black, depending on how "pure" is father was and how
much "black blood" his mother had.

One of many sad things about anti-black racism: In the 18th century, one
sixteenth "black blood" was enough to get one classified as black and in
the 21st century it still is.

Tiger Woods is another example. He's 50% Thai; his face is very
typically Thai. Yet because his father was a mixture of "races" that
includes blacks, he's considered by almost everybody to be black.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
First Post
2015-05-25 16:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Very strange. He's never disputed his Kenyan father, which makes him
pretty close to 50% black, depending on how "pure" is father was and how
much "black blood" his mother had.
One of many sad things about anti-black racism: In the 18th century, one
sixteenth "black blood" was enough to get one classified as black and in
the 21st century it still is.
Tiger Woods is another example. He's 50% Thai; his face is very
typically Thai. Yet because his father was a mixture of "races" that
includes blacks, he's considered by almost everybody to be black.
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
So you, Warren and Obama believe that if not, for example, a Henry
Ford that those workers would have come together on their own and came
up with the concept of the assembly line without needing an
independent thinker like Ford.
And Microsoft, Apple etc would have come into existence and became the
giants that they are even without a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs because
all are equal in your tiny little mind.

Liberalism: "Since we aren't able to create something great by
ourselves then no one else can possibly be capable of doing it either.
If they were then we would feel inadequate and unable to compete so we
refuse to acknowledge any individual accomplishment."

Such statements as those made by Obama and Warren imply a high level
of jealousy and resentment towards anyone that has the fortitude and
ability to build anything and profit from any original and innovative
idea. The implication that those that are successful are just taking
advantage of what everyone else has done is flawed out of the gate
since those individuals pay the same taxes and have no greater access
to roads and infrastructure than anyone else. You imply that they
built whatever they have on the backs of everyone else which is an
extrapolation taken to the extreme.
Just one small step further and you have the equation that "if it
weren't for other people willing to buy what you make then you'd have
nothing so you've accomplished nothing".
That is insane thinking to say the least and is obviously the product
of a mind that is just envious and jealous of anyone that accomplishes
anything. Such statements are made for the sole purpose of just
denegrating and bringing everyone down to the same level of non
accomplishment.
It should also be noted that the only people that the left points it's
frail little fingers at with such statements are those who actually
produce a product or service that benefits the general buying public.
Never do we see the left make such ludicrous accusations toward
entertainers or liberal icon billionaires such as George Soros or
their own liberal politicians who have made their entire living off of
the backs of the taxpayers.
And just what is the real point of wagging your little fingers at
those who create and produce? How does caliming that they "didn;t
build that" productive in any form? What is it that you expect from
them after making your little pompous accusation? What is it that you
believe they owe you or anyone else?
They paid their taxes just like anyone else and they pay for the
postage to ship their products. Hell, when it comes to moving their
goods, most of them pay many times more the road use taxes than you do
as an individual. A man who purchases his own 18 wheeler and is an
independant operator pays over $30,000 a year in highway usage fees.
How much do YOU pay in fuel taxes and fees for your tags?

Thus and so, to make the smartassed comment that "you didn;t build
that" is nothing more than an exercise to just degrade and insult
anyone who took the initiative to do something themselves instead of
working themselves silly making someone else wealthy.
As stated, it is nothing more than envy and jealousy on display.

BTW, according to your dear leader and his wife both, they didn't
dep[end on anyone to get where they are today. Indeed, according to
Michelle Obama in particular, they achieved the whitehouse all by
their little lonesome and had to fight and claw against virtually
everyone in order to achive the presidency.
Yet to everyone else in the world they will point their little fingers
and say "you didn't build that".
How truly pathetic.
No wonder leftists for the most part want to just sit on their lazy
non producing asses and suck off the labors of everyone else.
Charles H. Sampson
2015-05-26 08:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Very strange. He's never disputed his Kenyan father, which makes him
pretty close to 50% black, depending on how "pure" is father was and how
much "black blood" his mother had.
One of many sad things about anti-black racism: In the 18th century, one
sixteenth "black blood" was enough to get one classified as black and in
the 21st century it still is.
Tiger Woods is another example. He's 50% Thai; his face is very
typically Thai. Yet because his father was a mixture of "races" that
includes blacks, he's considered by almost everybody to be black.
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
So you, Warren and Obama believe that if not, for example, a Henry
Ford that those workers would have come together on their own and came
up with the concept of the assembly line without needing an
independent thinker like Ford.
And Microsoft, Apple etc would have come into existence and became the
giants that they are even without a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs because
all are equal in your tiny little mind.
Liberalism: "Since we aren't able to create something great by
ourselves then no one else can possibly be capable of doing it either.
If they were then we would feel inadequate and unable to compete so we
refuse to acknowledge any individual accomplishment."
Such statements as those made by Obama and Warren imply a high level
of jealousy and resentment towards anyone that has the fortitude and
ability to build anything and profit from any original and innovative
idea. The implication that those that are successful are just taking
advantage of what everyone else has done is flawed out of the gate
since those individuals pay the same taxes and have no greater access
to roads and infrastructure than anyone else. You imply that they
built whatever they have on the backs of everyone else which is an
extrapolation taken to the extreme.
Just one small step further and you have the equation that "if it
weren't for other people willing to buy what you make then you'd have
nothing so you've accomplished nothing".
That is insane thinking to say the least and is obviously the product
of a mind that is just envious and jealous of anyone that accomplishes
anything. Such statements are made for the sole purpose of just
denegrating and bringing everyone down to the same level of non
accomplishment.
It should also be noted that the only people that the left points it's
frail little fingers at with such statements are those who actually
produce a product or service that benefits the general buying public.
Never do we see the left make such ludicrous accusations toward
entertainers or liberal icon billionaires such as George Soros or
their own liberal politicians who have made their entire living off of
the backs of the taxpayers.
And just what is the real point of wagging your little fingers at
those who create and produce? How does caliming that they "didn;t
build that" productive in any form? What is it that you expect from
them after making your little pompous accusation? What is it that you
believe they owe you or anyone else?
They paid their taxes just like anyone else and they pay for the
postage to ship their products. Hell, when it comes to moving their
goods, most of them pay many times more the road use taxes than you do
as an individual. A man who purchases his own 18 wheeler and is an
independant operator pays over $30,000 a year in highway usage fees.
How much do YOU pay in fuel taxes and fees for your tags?
Thus and so, to make the smartassed comment that "you didn;t build
that" is nothing more than an exercise to just degrade and insult
anyone who took the initiative to do something themselves instead of
working themselves silly making someone else wealthy.
As stated, it is nothing more than envy and jealousy on display.
BTW, according to your dear leader and his wife both, they didn't
dep[end on anyone to get where they are today. Indeed, according to
Michelle Obama in particular, they achieved the whitehouse all by
their little lonesome and had to fight and claw against virtually
everyone in order to achive the presidency.
Yet to everyone else in the world they will point their little fingers
and say "you didn't build that".
How truly pathetic.
No wonder leftists for the most part want to just sit on their lazy
non producing asses and suck off the labors of everyone else.
Wow! What a rant! The references to Warren makes me think it was in
response to my signature. I don't have the time or interest to respond
to all the silly statements you made, but I will take you on a slow walk
through the signature.

At the end of the first line is the word "good". That's an indication
that Warren doesn't begrudge the rich their achievement. Neither do I.

The point is that the Fords, Gateses, Jobs, et al of this world didn't
make their accomplishments out of nothing. A big infrastructure was
there in place for them to use. Yes, a trucker pays big bucks in highway
taxes. How much freeway would his $30,000 construct if he had to start
trucking without freeways?

Some self-effacing great man, I can't remember who it was, said, "The
reason I could see so far was because I stood on the shoulders of
giants." All the signature says is for the rich to acknowledge their
debt to those who came before and use some of their great wealth to pave
the way for those who are coming behind.

One reason I'm a liberal is that we usually acknowledge our debts to
others. From my point of view, it seems like a lot of conservatives say,
"I did this all by myself."

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
Rhino
2015-05-25 23:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Very strange. He's never disputed his Kenyan father, which makes him
pretty close to 50% black, depending on how "pure" is father was and how
much "black blood" his mother had.
One of many sad things about anti-black racism: In the 18th century, one
sixteenth "black blood" was enough to get one classified as black and in
the 21st century it still is.
Tiger Woods is another example. He's 50% Thai; his face is very
typically Thai. Yet because his father was a mixture of "races" that
includes blacks, he's considered by almost everybody to be black.
These days, the number of your ancestors who were one "race" or another
has very little to do with anything. People "identify" as a given "race"
based on their own feelings about the matter. If they "feel" black, they
can declare themselves black, even if blacks formed only a very small
part of their family tree.

By the same token, someone like Ward Churchill could declare himself an
Indian, even if he was - at most - 1/32 aboriginal. And yes, I know
that the politically correct term is "native American" but I am
Canadian, not American, and I do NOT like the word "native" used that
way. As far as I'm concerned, anyone born in a given country can
reasonably claim to be a native of that country, whether he has
aboriginal blood or not. That's why I prefer the term "aboriginal" for
those who are descended from the people who crossed the Bering land
bridge 14,000 years ago.

For what it's worth, I strongly dislike the word "race" when it is used
to distinguish between Caucasians, Asians or Negroids. (And don't get me
started on nonsense like "the Irish race".) As far as I'm concerned,
there is only one race: the human race.
--
Rhino
Charles H. Sampson
2015-05-26 08:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
Very strange. He's never disputed his Kenyan father, which makes him
pretty close to 50% black, depending on how "pure" is father was and how
much "black blood" his mother had.
One of many sad things about anti-black racism: In the 18th century, one
sixteenth "black blood" was enough to get one classified as black and in
the 21st century it still is.
Tiger Woods is another example. He's 50% Thai; his face is very
typically Thai. Yet because his father was a mixture of "races" that
includes blacks, he's considered by almost everybody to be black.
These days, the number of your ancestors who were one "race" or another
has very little to do with anything. People "identify" as a given "race"
based on their own feelings about the matter. If they "feel" black, they
can declare themselves black, even if blacks formed only a very small
part of their family tree.
I agree with the third sentence but not the first two. In the U. S.,
anybody with skin that is darker than a blotchy pink, kinky hair, and
thick lips who tried to say that he was "white" would be snickered at,
or worse.
Post by Rhino
By the same token, someone like Ward Churchill could declare himself an
Indian, even if he was - at most - 1/32 aboriginal. And yes, I know
that the politically correct term is "native American" but I am
Canadian, not American, and I do NOT like the word "native" used that
way. As far as I'm concerned, anyone born in a given country can
reasonably claim to be a native of that country, whether he has
aboriginal blood or not. That's why I prefer the term "aboriginal" for
those who are descended from the people who crossed the Bering land
bridge 14,000 years ago.
I don't know the Ward Churchill story. Is it something Canadian?

The distinction between "native American" and "aboriginal" that you want
to make is a fine one. More power to you. Unfortunately, when you want
to communicate you have to use the vocabulary that listeners/readers
understand.
Post by Rhino
For what it's worth, I strongly dislike the word "race" when it is used
to distinguish between Caucasians, Asians or Negroids. (And don't get me
started on nonsense like "the Irish race".) As far as I'm concerned,
there is only one race: the human race.
I agree fully. If I'm careful in my writing, I always put "race" in
quotes. It's a term that has no usable definition, either scientifically
or in general. I cringe when I have to use it but I take solice in the
belief that most people will understand what I'm writing about.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
Bill Steele
2015-05-26 18:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by Rhino
For what it's worth, I strongly dislike the word "race" when it is used
to distinguish between Caucasians, Asians or Negroids. (And don't get me
started on nonsense like "the Irish race".) As far as I'm concerned,
there is only one race: the human race.
I agree fully. If I'm careful in my writing, I always put "race" in
quotes. It's a term that has no usable definition, either scientifically
or in general. I cringe when I have to use it but I take solice in the
belief that most people will understand what I'm writing about.
Charlie
Originally, anthropologists created the term and apparently had a sound
scientific classification system. It only became a problem when American
agribusiness discovered it could be used to create a separate, easily
identified underclass.
LBJ
2015-05-26 20:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by Rhino
For what it's worth, I strongly dislike the word "race" when it is used
to distinguish between Caucasians, Asians or Negroids. (And don't get me
started on nonsense like "the Irish race".) As far as I'm concerned,
there is only one race: the human race.
I agree fully. If I'm careful in my writing, I always put "race" in
quotes. It's a term that has no usable definition, either scientifically
or in general. I cringe when I have to use it but I take solice in the
belief that most people will understand what I'm writing about.
Charlie
Originally, anthropologists created the term
Negroes and their behavior helped define the points of
separation so that there is no mistaking the primitive ignorance
displayed by an inferior race.
S***@smack.com
2015-05-26 23:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LBJ
Negroes and their behavior helped define the points of
separation so that there is no mistaking the primitive ignorance
displayed by an inferior race.
Hunter >
2015-05-26 08:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.

And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.

So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
1/16th black is wrong anyway. Ever see a picture of his dad?:

http://tinyurl.com/multsuu

Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Bill Steele
2015-05-26 18:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
"LBJ" >
2015-05-26 21:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
Charles H. Sampson
2015-05-27 13:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
Dano
2015-05-27 16:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)

===============================================

Well clearly this idiotic bigot is blaming the fact that he thinks Obama is
94% white on his awful character traits...you know...like LYING?
Bill Steele
2015-05-27 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Takes a lot of tracing of the family tree. Obama's father seems to be
100% black, but who knows? Maybe an ancestor was raped by a Portuguese
explorer.

Anyway, "Black" in America is more a cultural thing. If you're dark
enough to be noticed by racists, you're Black.
LBJ
2015-05-27 21:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Charles H. Sampson
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Takes a lot of tracing of the family tree. Obama's father seems to be
100% black, but who knows? Maybe an ancestor was raped by a Portuguese
explorer.
Anyway, "Black" in America is more a cultural thing. If you're dark
enough to be noticed by racists, you're Black.
Lying about your minority "black" race to get a government job
is an acceptable "cultural thing" is it?
LBJ
2015-05-27 20:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
===============================================
Well clearly this idiotic bigot is blaming the fact that he thinks Obama is
94% white on his awful character traits...you know...like LYING?
Confirmation that you are ignorant and can't read noted.

"He is indisputably 50% white."
LBJ
2015-05-27 20:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Same place we come up with 50% "white blood". Now get to work
and figure out what the other 44% is.
Bill Steele
2015-05-28 20:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by LBJ
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Same place we come up with 50% "white blood". Now get to work
and figure out what the other 44% is.
Hemoglobin?
LBJ
2015-05-28 23:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by LBJ
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Post by "LBJ" >
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Hunter >
Post by vu
One sixteenth. That is all. He is indisputably 50% white.
-----
Funny, it were racist like you who set the rules for who is to be
considered black some 150 years or more ago with the "One drop rule"
about how much African ancestry a white person can have and still be
considered white. By law in many States it could be as little as
1/32nd black but 1/16th was the norm. Under that rule you could've
looked like Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Rohm or Charlie Hunnam but
still be considered black if they had, say a single black
great-great-grandfather and everyone else in their family history
being white.
And they would be treated as black if white people knew. That would
mean not very much hope of get a job above that of a servant or
servant like position, if one manage to get a career they could have
white people promoted over you even if you were more qualified and/or
greater seniority than them; white people don't sell you a house, you
don't get a bank loan to buy that house, "pure whites" won't date you.
In the Southern States you had to ride in the back of the bus, deny
you the right to vote and to be on juries etc.
So yes even if you were right and that Barack Obama was indeed just
1/16th black it would still mean he is black according to the rules of
people who think like you. Regardless, your claim that he is only
http://tinyurl.com/multsuu
Chances are judging from this picture alone that he was likely a pure
African black person. Its not totally certain given how genetics are,
mixing skin color isn't like mixing paint, but most of the time one
can tell if a person is racially mixed. Obama Sr. doesn't look it.
I actually is like mixing paint, in that it depends on how much pigment
you add to the can. There's a gene that codes for melanin. The more
copies of the gene you have, the more melanin you make. (Not linked to
genes for anything else. Sorry.)
Having 6% black blood and claiming to be black when you are
mostly white, is deliberately lying. Something Obama is prone
to do.
(Pissing into the wind) Where do you come up with a figure like 6%
"black blood"?
Same place we come up with 50% "white blood". Now get to work
and figure out what the other 44% is.
Hemoglobin?
There you go.

Our science defunct global warming peddling liberal cretin
community has again stepped forward to provide, an incorrect
answer.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...