Honest Question: If Obama is re-elected, where does Republican Party go from there?

blackascoal said:
Much respect for you sister. I appreciate that you allow me the freedom of my thoughts without it intruding on our mutual respect.

Without any attempt to step on anything you've said here, I just want you to know that I too think seriously about women's issues .. I have daughters. I take a long look at the things I believe and say to ensure that they not only support and protect my daughters, but all the daughters and mothers everywhere. I'm a socialist .. I think about everybody.

In thinking about everybody, the most critical issue for me is war and the horrors that they bring. Not just because one of my daughters is in the military, but because the evil of war touches everybody. Why are SS, Medicare, and everyother saftey net in America threatened? Because we've spent the money on for-profit wars and an exploding and outrageous military budget.

I'm not voting for Obama because I can't. My conscience won't allow that. I'm working to build an alternative for the left, and a political party that stands for what we believe.

I think we both have the same respect for women and their issues. Hopefully our working to achieve the same goals from different angles will find us arriving at the same goals and successes at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I hope so too. :) In the meantime my own conscience would not allow me to cast any vote that could possibly lead to the woman-hating crazies on the right gaining more power.
 
blackascoal said:
First off your thoughts about the divisions in the party are your own .. or shall I say, the thoughts of Paulish libertarians. While I can appreciate your perspective, please save the pompous crap about what I don't know.

The divisions between tea party and moderate republicans is obvious to most political analysts and observers .. and contrary to what Paulites believe, they are not the most important element in the Republican Party .. in fact, they are easily dismissed. The thought that Ron Paul could EVER be the president is the thinking of children.

Additionally, there is nothing mystical about libertarian thought. The "intellectuals" ??? :0) Sure they are. That's why they believe in an economic system that doesn't exist anywhere on planet earth. Lassiez-fare economics is a pipedream .. make that a failed pipedream.

SEE: the Robber Barons.

When I think about libertarians I think scientologists. Ya'll have a lot in common. :0)

As for the tea party .. it's the party of stupid and Obama's best weapon. The knuckleheads in the tea party and their gutter language and thought energized Obama supporters far beyond what he was capable of doing by himself.

Yes, he has a horrible record .. but most people would rather that then to allow the morons in the tea party to have any more control of the government. With the tea party there, this Congress is the lowest rated in American history.

So, we can have good conversations about this issue and anyother .. but you should save the pompous for somebody else.
Click to expand...

They are quite accurate and based on being on the ground.

No, Ron Paul could not be President. No one said he could, not even him.

Your divisions are based on Faux News and long term memory problems. Does no one remember that Fox hated Ron Paul and the early Tea Party, before it was coopted?
 
Santorum is Obama's best weapon. Santorum and Paul hate each other. Romney will lose just as McCain did becasue libertarians will not vote for him in unison. You have been too greatly influenced by trolls.

You should save the pompous for someone else. Apparently you are not listening as well as I thought, but still better than some. :)
 
The entire GOP is in disarray. It has NO IDEAS and can't sell the warn out theme it's used for 40+ years plus the American Taliban is branching out. The question was what will they do, I say they'll double down and try to pretend they actually have a plan or policies. They'll brow beat people with propaganda and the stupid and uninformed lazy asses will follow as they always have however it won't matter because as they die off they can't replace them. THAT is the real issue behind much of the crazy on the right. FEAR!!! Romney/Ryan will sink under the weight of their own ignorance and hate.
 
bravo said:
Do the Canadians have to endure the gang warfare on the streets and in their schools, practically daily drive-by killings, flash mob rioting and looting of stores and the level of drug use and trafficking in their cities and towns ? Its not just perception in the US, its reality....its not imaginary chaos, its reality, its not simple animosity to some race, its the reality of the danger on our streets......I think you know it as well as I.....

This unexpected and quite poignant remark by Jesse Jackson speaks wonders....

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Click to expand...

I missed your response BAC...
 
blackascoal said:
No, I think I have a fairly good understanding of how genes work.

I respect your thoughts a lot brother, and I'd welcome your perspectives of how they work .. arriving at the same undeniable conclusion that such pairings almost always produces children that are more identifiably black.

I have one of those of my own.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your respect and I mean no disrespect towards you but let me be a little less tactfull. I'm telling you as a biologist that your understanding is incorrect.

The fact that one carries a genetic expression is not enough. A person can carry or inherit a genetic expression (alleles) that are expressed or not expressed (genotypes). To be expressed the allele that is inherited from the parent which is the dominant allel will be expressed, that is, unless the offspring inherits a set of recessive alleles of that genotype from both parents, then that recessive genotype will be expressed. Obviosly the genotype for darker skin is a dominant genotype and light skin is a recessive one.
 
Last edited:
TheSuperstringTheory said:
He's black because he grew up in a pervasive culture of racism. He was pushed to being black in the same way Tiger Woods was/is. Mixed race children are on the rise. They were ONCE pushed out of their white identity by racist grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and the culture. That is not as true anymore, no matter what racist trolls (not you) may claim.

No ones said he would have pretended to be white. He would not have been made to reject or feel pained by his white heritage if not for racists.

It is much like Bill Maher. He once identified as Libertarian, but then in a monologue not long ago he rejected the label because many of the faux-libertarians and real life trolls rejected him. The same is true with Eastwood. I have been doing the same in pushing away those who misuse the label for their fascists dreams of white supremacy.

Honestly, Barrack looks like the product of a mixed race couple. So does Tiger. As more and more children are born to interracial couples people will stop assuming that this or that person is all one or the other.

Also, the scientific facts that you mention are coming to light. Someday soon the lying idiots that deny reality will be drowned out and we will all be African Americans. The human genome project has proven it conclusively.

Only the blind klansmen fail to see it now. Chapelle is much funnier and deeper than you believe.

Here they come. Join me in pointing and laughing at these ridiculous clowns.
:rofl2:
Click to expand...

I like you brother. I like your reasoning even when I don't agree with it.

Where do you see mixed race in Obama or Tiger? I don't see it .. and I've been looking at black people all my life.

They are black because they are black. My son of a mixed relationship is black because he is black .. although he is lighter than Obama and Tiger, he is still not only identifiably black, there is nothing else he could be. No one forces him to be anything.

Your theory is not something I would want you to tell my son. Mixed race children have enough identity issues of their own without someone telling them they should be white because it's better for them, or that it's the only way they can move. Frankly, I find that kinda' nasty and self-destructive.

They should be who and what they are, and they should enjoy its gifts.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I appreciate your respect and I mean no disrespect towards you but let me be a little less tactfull. I'm telling you as a biologist that your understanding is incorrect. That is not how genetic expressions work. Such pairing do result in some of the genetic expressions for black heritage expressing themselves not becuase the offspring results in expression of genotypes that go far back in our history but because a specific allele expression is dominant.

For example using the example of a caucasion person and a person of African decent. The expression of a greater quantity of melonin, from the African genotype, in the skin is dominant over caucasion genotype for low levels of melonin. Just as the expression for brown eyes and a more pronounced brow ridge are dominant alleles (African descent) and would be expressed in that offspring, just as bifud spinous process in the cervical vertabrae and a more pronounced philtrum (caucasion alleles) are dominant genotypes and would thus be expressed (and are) over non-bifud spinous processes and the absence of a philtrum.

If the genotype is dominant it will be expressed. If it is recessive it will exist witihin that organisms genotype but simply will not be expressed. If what you said was correct that the caucasion mother (Obamas) all ready had such a genotype for the expression of African expression than it would be a recessive expression and if she had mated with another caucasion male with the same recessive genotype then a fourth of their children would have the racial characteristics associated with African racial characteristics. That is a phenomena which has not been observed which would have to occur for your observation to be factually correct.

Having said that, it doesn't really affect the accuracy of the political view you expressed but is not factually correct from how genetic inheritence works. The fact that we all originally have African descent is not really a factor because modern Africans would have about as much in common with Ancient Africans prior to their diaspora as any other race would. You would share some traits in common, as all races do, but the course of evolution would predict significant differnces from modern Africans. I'm reasonably sure that if one researched the fossil record that would be born out.

The point being, when two couples of different races mate and produce offspring the characteristic of either race that are exhibited in that offspring are determined by whether that particular allele is a dominant or recessive genotype. If the offspring between the mating of caucasion descent and African descent exhibits more African features than it is because the alleles for those features are dominant and the caucasion characteristics are recessive. If in your example the mother did also carry alleles for the African genotype and she mated with an African male and the caucasion genotype were dominant, then the child would exhibit the caucasion characteristics. So it's not just a matter of carrying that perticular allele for a genotype to be expressed that allele must also be a dominant expression.

That can easily be tested too. If say President Obamas mother had blue eyes (recesive) then if he inherited that allele (50% chance). If he had married a caucasion woman with blue eyes, that was doubly recessive, than half their children would have blue eyes. He didn't he married a woman of African descent. If either one of his daughters marries a white man with blue eyes than 1/4 of their children would have blue eyes.
Click to expand...

See, I remembered you were a real scientist. Don't let her needle you about it.
 
blackascoal said:
I like you brother. I like your reasoning even when I don't agree with it.

Where do you see mixed race in Obama or Tiger? I don't see it .. and I've been looking at black people all my life..
Click to expand...

No brother, I don't think you knew that you were.

blackascoal said:
They are black because they are black. My son of a mixed relationship is black because he is black .. although he is lighter than Obama and Tiger, he is still not only identifiably black, there is nothing else he could be. No one forces him to be anything.

Your theory is not something I would want you to tell my son. Mixed race children have enough identity issues of their own without someone telling them they should be white because it's better for them, or that it's the only way they can move. Frankly, I find that kinda' nasty and self-destructive.

They should be who and what they are, and they should enjoy its gifts.
Click to expand...

WHO SAID it was better for them to be white! LISTEN! You are not doing so, BROTHER!

I said they will not be made to resent their white heritage by racists as much as they once did.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I appreciate your respect and I mean no disrespect towards you but let me be a little less tactfull. I'm telling you as a biologist that your understanding is incorrect.

The fact that one carries a genetic expression is not enough. A person can carry or inherit a genetic expression (alleles) that are expressed or not expressed (genotypes). To be expressed the allele that is inherited from the parent which is the dominant allel will be expressed, that is, unless the offspring inherits a set of recessive alleles of that genotype from both parents, then that recessive genotype will be expressed. Obviosly the genotype for darker skin is a dominant genotype and light skin is a recessive one.
Click to expand...

I certainly hate to challenge a biologist on this issue .. especially one that I like. :0)

But it isn't just the skin that makes these children identifiably black. It's evident in a variety of physical characteristics. It has to be more than dark is dominant.

I've had several conversations with geneticists on this issue. Many that I've spoken to believe as I do .. it's the genes.

I think all of planet earth knows that those aren't Michael Jackson's biological children. :0)

As the slavers of our past discovered, they could rape all the black women they could, but all they could do is produce more black children. They could not produce white children.

If it isn't just the skin .. and it isn't, then what is it?
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
They are quite accurate and based on being on the ground.

No, Ron Paul could not be President. No one said he could, not even him.

Your divisions are based on Faux News and long term memory problems. Does no one remember that Fox hated Ron Paul and the early Tea Party, before it was coopted?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

You must be a libertarian.

Out here in the really, real world, Ron Paul doesn't mean squat.

It isn't the divisions betweel Paulbots and mainstream republicans at the root of the problems facing the Republican Party. Ron Paul is yersterday's news.

It matters little what Faux News hated. Ron Paul was never going anywhere .. he's a libertarian in republican clothing. A libertarian with a lot of nasty baggage at that.
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
No brother, I don't think you knew that you were.



WHO SAID it was better for them to be white! LISTEN! You are not doing so, BROTHER!

I said they will not be made to resent their white heritage by racists as much as they once did.
Click to expand...

No idea what any of that means.

Who said it was better for them to be white?

You did ..

"That does not mean they reject their non-white culture, but it will not move them."

I asked you for clarification on this .. you didn't provide it. I'll ask again .. what does that mean? BROTHER
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
I certainly hate to challenge a biologist on this issue .. especially one that I like. :0)

But it isn't just the skin that makes these children identifiably black. It's evident in a variety of physical characteristics. It has to be more than dark is dominant.

I've had several conversations with geneticists on this issue. Many that I've spoken to believe as I do .. it's the genes.

I think all of planet earth knows that those aren't Michael Jackson's biological children. :0)

As the slavers of our past discovered, they could rape all the black women they could, but all they could do is produce more black children. They could not produce white children.

If it isn't just the skin .. and it isn't, then what is it?
Click to expand...
I thought I just explained that to you. Dominant vs recessive alleles. I just used skin color as an example. The same applies for all genotypes. Dominant alleles are expressed over recessive alleles for any given genotype.
 
blackascoal said:
I certainly hate to challenge a biologist on this issue .. especially one that I like. :0)

But it isn't just the skin that makes these children identifiably black. It's evident in a variety of physical characteristics. It has to be more than dark is dominant.
Click to expand...

Backpedal. How do you identify these non physical characteristics through looking at them. With needles, yes I am sure that is possible.

blackascoal said:
I've had several conversations with geneticists on this issue. Many that I've spoken to believe as I do .. it's the genes.

I think all of planet earth knows that those aren't Michael Jackson's biological children. :0)

As the slavers of our past discovered, they could rape all the black women they could, but all they could do is produce more black children. They could not produce white children.

If it isn't just the skin .. and it isn't, then what is it?
Click to expand...

Nobody, said it was just the skin. Well, except you who claimed race is all determined by skin color and then challenges the identity of those children. That's really fd up. Losing respect by the minute.
 
blackascoal said:
I certainly hate to challenge a biologist on this issue .. especially one that I like. :0)

But it isn't just the skin that makes these children identifiably black. It's evident in a variety of physical characteristics. It has to be more than dark is dominant.

I've had several conversations with geneticists on this issue. Many that I've spoken to believe as I do .. it's the genes.

I think all of planet earth knows that those aren't Michael Jackson's biological children. :0)

As the slavers of our past discovered, they could rape all the black women they could, but all they could do is produce more black children. They could not produce white children.

If it isn't just the skin .. and it isn't, then what is it?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you guys are mixing two different issues.....of course Mott is right about the recessive genotype and the reason for skin color
and BAC is right in saying the genes account for other physical characteristics....
As with any 2 parents contributing to the physical characteristics of their children, the kids may have Mom's eyes or nose as well as Dad's....not so with skin color.
I've heard it said that the children will always be darker than the white parent but lighter than the dark parent.....

And if you're talking about personality, thats a completely different issue.....certainly affected by the kids choice of friends and likes and dislikes and that the darker
skin color would certainly be a strong issue that will effect his developing personality....

Interesting reading all the comments
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top