Whether you think he's angelic or devilish -- love, like, dislike, hate or don't care one way or another about the man and his presidency --there's no doubt some major social changes have taken foot across the US since Barack Obama took office in 2008.

He's not responsible alone, the voting public, the Supreme Court, community protestors and many organizations and lobbyists have done a lot of work.

But, would these changes have gone down had a Republican (or another more conservative Democrat) been in office?

- Same sex marriage legalization: It was legal (briefly) in two states in 2008. It's now legal in 36 states (with same sex spouses eligible for the same Federal benefits as other married couples) and may be legal nationwide before the end of Obama's presidency; the Supreme Court is ruling state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional left and right.

- Marijuana decriminalization and legalization: Arresting, prosecuting and jailing people for possession of marijuana is not something the government supports pursuing any longer. While the Feds still try to mess with some medicinal distributors, several states and districts are moving away from using marijuana busts to generate revenue and fulfill private prison quotas (in the process, hampering users of marijuana from finding future employment). Others haven't gone so far as to legalize marijuana for personal use, but have decriminalized it so there's a fine to pay but no incarceration or employment-hampering record in many cases.

- Civil Rights and Law Enforcement reform: The DOJ in Obama's second term has been investigating discrimination and abuses of power within police departments across the country. Cleveland PD, as a result, will need to reform it's hiring, training, and public interaction policies. Ferguson PD will need to reform its systematic abuses and acceptance/promotion of racial discrimination in its policing practices...

I think those are a few of the things that will define President Obama's legacy. At present, some see them as steps backwards and others as leaps forward for the country.

What do you think (positive or negative) will define Obama's legacy, based on his presidency so far?

Protests everytime a person of color is shot by law enforcement.

I'm glad that he made the speech so that he could try and stop the racial bigotry happening down there and throughout the United States from all Racial backgrounds and all colors.

(03-09-2015, 11:30 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Protests everytime a person of color is shot by law enforcement.

There have indeed been protests when unarmed people of color were shot and killed by law enforcement.

There have also been investigations to determine whether the officers (or citizens, in the case of Zimmerman) violated the deceased's civil rights. So far, the answer has been "no".

But, it has been determined that there are entire police forces who exercise discrimination against people of color and changes have been mandated. Do you think that's a bad thing or believe that there is no pervasive racial discrimination in some police departments, Gunnar?

I think protests are a good thing, personally. Freedom of speech; getting involved to affect change when you feel passionately about a cause; having a voice... Sometimes protests turn into riots and that sucks, but the right to protest perceived injustice is key to democracy -- people of color (and women, and anti-war crusaders, and anti-abortion advocates...) have been protesting (peaceful or otherwise) since the birth of our nation, under 44 US Presidents.

(03-09-2015, 12:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(03-09-2015, 11:30 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Protests everytime a person of color is shot by law enforcement.

There have indeed been protests when unarmed people of color were shot and killed by law enforcement.

There have also been investigations to determine whether the officers (or citizens, in the case of Zimmerman) violated the deceased's civil rights. So far, the answer has been "no".

But, it has been determined that there are entire police forces who exercise discrimination against people of color and changes have been mandated. Do you think that's a bad thing or believe that there is no pervasive racial discrimination in some police departments, Gunnar?

I think protests are a good thing, personally. Freedom of speech; getting involved to affect change when you feel passionately about a cause; having a voice... Sometimes protests turn into riots and that sucks, but the right to protest perceived injustice is key to democracy -- people of color (and women, and anti-war crusaders, and anti-abortion advocates...) have been protesting (peaceful or otherwise) since the birth of our nation, under 44 US Presidents.

No I don't believe for one second that racial discrimination isn't happening. At the same time, I don't believe that a protest is required every time a person of color is shot and killed. I also don't believe that any number of protests will eliminate discrimination.

That's the beauty of freedom of speech. You, Gunnar, don't believe the protests are required. Understood.

But, the people who are directly impacted by (or feel strongly opposed to) that discrimination do.

You don't believe that separate protests will eliminate discrimination. I understand that. I doubt that most of the people who feel discriminated against believe that discrimination can be eliminated altogether by protests either. But, can discrimination's negative impacts be lessened with greater awareness (via protests and other means) and reforms where it's proven to systematically exist? Oh yeah. I've been watching it happen my whole life in terms of discrimination against women, blacks, gays, vets...

(03-09-2015, 12:52 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: That's the beauty of freedom of speech. You, Gunnar, don't believe the protests are required. Understood.

But, the people who are directly impacted by (or feel strongly opposed to) that discrimination do.

You don't believe that separate protests will eliminate discrimination. I understand that. I doubt that most of the people who feel discriminated against believe that discrimination can be eliminated altogether by protests either. But, can discrimination's negative impacts be lessened with greater awareness (via protests and other means) and reforms where it's proven to systematically exist? Oh yeah. I've been watching it happen my whole life in terms of discrimination against women, blacks, gays, vets...

Why stop there? There are many other types of discrimination out there, but nobody talks about those types because it's not one of societies little darlings. Recently, a retirement community in Florida was labeled racist because it was all retired Indian folks. It's human nature to want to coexist with your own kind. I think far too much attention goes into what fits into societies scope of discrimination. Women, men, black, white, gay... All disriminate to some degree.

Furthermore, by only protesting when a white cop kills a black person, isn't that by definition discriminatory? Can it be true that black cops shoot white people? Black people? Asians? Why aren't there protests for those shootings?

(03-09-2015, 01:05 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It's human nature to want to coexist with your own kind. I think far too much attention goes into what fits into societies scope of discrimination. Women, men, black, white, gay... All disriminate to some degree.

In some humans more strongly than others, but I don't disagree.

Co-existing with the same civil and human rights applied equally to all citizens in the society, regardless of race, gender, religion... That's the idea.

Fortunately, you have the right to protest equal opportunity laws or anti-discrimination laws/regulations in relation to public retirement communities, public schools, public work places, etc... if you feel opposed to them.

(03-09-2015, 01:15 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Furthermore, by only protesting when a white cop kills a black person, isn't that by definition discriminatory? Can it be true that black cops shoot white people? Black people? Asians? Why aren't there protests for those shootings?

What? No, that's certainly not, by definition, "racism".

Fortunately, you too have the right to protest the killing of an unarmed white person (or person of any color) if you feel the shooting was a result of abuse of power, incompetence, or discrimination. I have.

(03-09-2015, 01:20 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(03-09-2015, 01:15 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Furthermore, by only protesting when a white cop kills a black person, isn't that by definition discriminatory? Can it be true that black cops shoot white people? Black people? Asians? Why aren't there protests for those shootings?

No, not in my opinion.

Fortunately, you have the right to protest the killing of an unarmed white person if you feel the shooting was a result of abuse of power, incompetence, or discrimination. I have.

We never hear about white folks that get shot by black cops. Why? DISCRIMINATION BY THE MEDIA!!! Let's all go protest! Yeah right.

Yeah, I don't see it the same way as you do, Gunnar.

I don't think the lack of stories about unarmed white folks being shot by black cops is because the media is hiding them in an act of racial discrimination.

I also don't resent people for choosing to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and public assembly, whether I agree with their causes or disagree with them.

So, we disagree and yet coexist well here at Mock; continuing to express our opposing positions freely. Mock is a diverse democratic little community like that; gotta love it.

(03-09-2015, 01:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: So, we disagree and yet coexist well here at Mock; continuing to express our opposing positions. Mock is a democratic little community like that; gotta love it.

Disagreeing is what makes most of you interesting to me. Everyone gets to have their say and rarely get pissed. I can't say the same for a lot of these conversations in real life. People get so friggin' mad. Cussin', angry faced pissed. Ugh.

Whatever the thought behind the radical black movement I think they will not be happy until whitey pays them back for their forefathers sins and repressions. Most blacks I know could care less about Ferguson and have said that the kid was pushing the man into a corner and got shot. his own fault.

(03-09-2015, 01:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yeah, I don't see it the same way as you do, Gunnar.

I don't think the lack of stories about unarmed white folks being shot by black cops is because the media is hiding them in an act of racial discrimination.

I also don't resent people for choosing to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and public assembly, whether I agree with their causes or disagree with them.

So, we disagree and yet coexist well here at Mock; continuing to express our opposing positions freely. Mock is a diverse democratic little community like that; gotta love it.

I never said I resented anyone. I just don't believe it is warranted every time a white cop shoots a person of color (and for the record my black sister agrees that it's redicuous). Believe it or not, sometimes the use of deadly force is required regardless of the persons skin color. The fact that you never hear about a protest because a black cop uses deadly force against a black person is proof that discrimination is alive and well in the good ole US of A.

That does not fit the narrative.

No, I don't believe it!! Sometimes deadly force is required by police, regardless of race?

Yeah, I'm not mentally retarded, Gunnar. So, I'm aware of that fact.

I'm even aware of the fact that sometimes deadly force is required (or reasonably perceived to be required) even if one party is armed and the other is not.

And, sometimes deadly force is not required or reasonably perceived to be required and it gets used anyway.

So, you don't resent protests even when you disagree with the protestors and think the protests are unwarranted. Sorry, I misunderstood you previously then.

You posted: "The fact that you never hear about a protest because a black cop uses deadly force against a black person is proof that discrimination is alive and well in the good ole US of A." I don't doubt that discrimination is alive in the good ole US of A -- but that certainly is not proof of it, in my opinion.

(03-09-2015, 02:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: No, I don't believe it!! Sometimes deadly force is required by police, regardless of race?

Yeah, I'm not mentally retarded, Gunnar. So, I'm aware of that fact.

I'm even aware of the fact that sometimes deadly force is required (or reasonably perceived to be required) even if one party is armed and the other is not.

And, sometimes deadly force is not required or reasonably perceived to be required and it gets used anyway.

So, you don't resent protests even when you disagree with the protestors and think the protests are unwarranted. Sorry, I misunderstood you previously then.

You posted: "The fact that you never hear about a protest because a black cop uses deadly force against a black person is proof that discrimination is alive and well in the good ole US of A." I don't doubt that discrimination is alive in the good ole US of A -- but that certainly is not proof of it, in my opinion.

I think it's discriminatory to protest when it's a white cop that shoots a black person. Nobody protests when a black cop shoots a black person or any other combination of races. white cop vs. black person = protest. Last time I checked the definition of discrimination is the practise of treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people. You can say it's not proof, but it sure does fit the definition rather nicely.

^ I understand your reasoning, Gunnar. I just don't agree with it.

So, is there anything other than the unarmed shooting protests that you think will define Obama's presidential legacy?

(03-09-2015, 03:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: ^ I understand your reasoning, Gunnar. I just don't agree with it.

So, is there anything other than the unarmed shooting protests that you think will define Obama's presidential legacy?

A decline in the quality of healthcare, but we won't feel that for another 4-8 years.