Your prediction about outcome of Super Tuesday

What is all this about the rep party having a "bunch of unelectable clowns" and that a dem will surely win? During the 2004 election, everybody, and I mean everybody both republicans and democrats, told me that there was no way Bush was going to win again. Then came the night that shall ever be known as the night I cried myself to sleep when it became clear that Bush was going to win with a popular majority.

Frankly, I'm appalled that you actually thought this single woman actually represented the view of more than a few people.Sure, there are people that will vote against Obama solely because he's black. Sure, there are people that will vote against Hillary just because she's a woman. Sure, there are people who will vote against McCain just because he's old. But does any of these actually surprise you?

That girl looks like a combination of slavik and mediterranian mix. Am I right?

Speaking of which, Hillary got less states...I'm hearing the ghostly voice again. I'm hearing it right now. The guy is talking about indian in 7/11. in delaware, the largest growth in population is indian american from india... you cannot go to a 7/11 or duncan donuts unless you have a slight indian accent... i'm not joking... denise... you know i got a lot of support from this...Anyway, Hillary got 9 states while Barrack got 13. However, Hillary got more delegates.Who do you guys think will finally emerge as the dem presidential candidate? Obviously, the other one will be the running mate.

Then who else will run as VP? Edwards?

Ok, I give up. Who do you think will consent to run as VP?Added by edit.Bill Clinton?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

See, this is not fair the way you say it. While I agree that there is no genetic disposition to race because there is no fine line seperating the races. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as race. Saying that there is no such thing as race is like saying there is no such thing as color. After all, where does red ends and orange begins?It is one of those things that I'd have to say I know it when I see it. Not being able to tell this girl's race has nothing to do with the fact that there is such a thing as race. It's like mixing a bunch of colors together and then say that there is no such thing as different colors because nobody could identify the various colors that got mixed together. Sure, I can't tell if that little girl is what you said she is. But I can definitely tell that she's not African just like I can tell that there's no blue in a mixture of red and black after seeing it. It's I know it when I see it kinda thing.

Point to me where I said color is the only thing we can use to define race? Yes, in my last post I used color as an analogy. Somehow, you missed the true meaning of my analogy about trying to find the fine line between red and orange and instead thought I said color is the one true thing we could use to define race. Which is why I said race is one of those things that I would have to say I know it when I see it. There is no fine line for me to tell the difference between some Africans and some Australians, but I can definitely tell the difference between a Caucasian and, say, an East Asian. And I have never claimed that there is such a thing as a "true race". All I'm saying is that while there is no such thing as "true race", that doesn't necessarily mean the concept of race is purely an illusion. There are no fine lines to seperate the "groups", if you will, but in a lot of instances we can definitely tell who's what. Like I said, I know it when I see it.Added by edit.As a preemptive strike against an imminent OT pointer, I'd like to point out that we are discussing about race, which has everything to do with this topic. The OP is talking about the race for the white house. Obviously, we are talking about the same thing Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Is there such a thing as "pure" color? If not, what does color really mean?

In philosophy, there is a concept called The Principle of Charity. When someone says something as idiotic as what skepticfaith said in this regard, applying the Principle of Charity makes me think that perhaps he meant something else not so idiotic but he couldn't communicate his thought well enough. In other words, I gave him the benefit of a doubt.I could be wrong in this, but the way I see skepticfaith's statement is that he wanted to say that classifying race can't be done with genetic analysis or other such methods that are so objective. His remark of "any 1 year old coudl tell..." could also mean that he was trying to say that at least to some people race is a real thing and that at least in some cases determining the race of a person with the "I know it when I see it" litmus test is fairly easy. If this is what he wanted to say, then I agree with him. While I can't determine the race or combination of races of every person on the planet, I can certainly tell the difference between a caucasian and someone from east Asia like a Korean. Giving examples of cases where the race or combination of races is not so easy to determine via I-know-it-when-I-see-it method doesn't disprove this fact.So, again, the suggestion by some people that race doesn't exist is rediculous. It might be a subjective thing, but it's anything but an illusion.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Is there such a thing as "pure" color?

​

No.

​

If not, what does color really mean?

​

Our names for colors are arbitrary.

---

I rest my case.