November 5, 200421 yr It'll probably be in 2012, probably Obama, but they have no chance in 2008 with Hillary. :blink:
November 5, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] Blackman will win before a woman does
November 5, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] Blackman will win before a woman does 608989[/snapback] On the republican ticket.
November 5, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] Blackman will win before a woman does 608989[/snapback] On the republican ticket. 608991[/snapback] I agree or maybe a hispanic
November 5, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] Obama is an Oreo, he's not a full-blown black person. He should probably dump his wife and marry a white lady and change his name to Robert Abraham to seem more white-friendly. :plain
November 5, 200421 yr I really hope they keep being strident s o b's. Keep insisting that the left control the nominating process and keep losing seats all over the country.
November 5, 200421 yr It'll probably be in 2012, probably Obama, but they have no chance in 2008 with Hillary. :blink: 608912[/snapback] Truly a sign of how bad off the Democratic Party is when the topic of regaining power and electability centers on a woman and an african american man.
November 5, 200421 yr It'll probably be in 2012, probably Obama, but they have no chance in 2008 with Hillary. They have no chance with Obama. Attitudes aren't going to take a quantum leap in 8 years that would lead white people to vote for a black president, let alone a black liberal with a non-Anglo name. Hillary and Obama are unelectable, and everyone knows it, just like they knew Howard Dean was unelectable over the gay issue and ditched him when the rubber met the road. The Dems would be best served by running someone like Harry Reid in NV (not to say he would be a dynamic candidate - but delivering NV to the Dems would be a huge pick-up, and he could likely sew up NM for them, and possibly deliver AZ) or a candidate out of Ohio (that's not a loon like Kucinich [sp?]) or Viriginia. I don't think the Dems need to worry about appealing to Southerners, if they can make inroads with the more moderate people in the southwest.
November 5, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] If it's someone like Colin Powell, yes.
November 8, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] If it's someone like Colin Powell, yes. You guys are hilarious. You know there's no way you'd vote for Colin Powell. Why do you even pretend? Do you even know the man's political views? The guy is quite liberal. Do you even know the guy supports affirmative action? He's just with the Republican party 'cos of his friendship with the Bushes and it pays good money to be the black face for the party of racists.
November 8, 200421 yr You guys really think a black man can win the presidency in our lifetime? 608987[/snapback] If it's someone like Colin Powell, yes. You guys are hilarious. You know there's no way you'd vote for Colin Powell. Why do you even pretend? Do you even know the man's political views? The guy is quite liberal. Do you even know the guy supports affirmative action? He's just with the Republican party 'cos of his friendship with the Bushes and it pays good money to be the black face for the party of racists. 610708[/snapback] I find this amusing. Why a party of racists? B/c the reps are against affirmative action and welfare, the two things that have kept minorities in poverty throughout the last half of the 20th century and into the 21st. Nothing is more racist than quotas and affirmative action, thats basically saying that minorities are too dumb to compete. Lets focus instead on helping them compete if thats what you feel is the problem. The dems in my opinion have an elitist racist ideology. If blacks for example had better schooling and can compete in the job market, there wouldnt be any more of the 'republicans/white man is putting the black down' speech which keeps many minority groups in a culture of dependancy, where they themselves begin to feel that w/o these programs and affirmative action that they cannot compete. So basically the govt is tellin them, you cant do it alone. The truth is even if they cant, the stance needs to be work hard and you will succeed, and if they need the extra push thats where 'govt' can help if they absolutely must.
November 8, 200421 yr Into mind reading now eh? No, I've read statements from the man where he said he supported affirmative action. Read his biography - the guy has some pretty liberal views.
November 8, 200421 yr I find this amusing. Why a party of racists? Consdiering that the party's agenda is being run by rednecks, they lock-up the racist vote pretty tight. B/c the reps are against affirmative action and welfare, the two things that have kept minorities in poverty throughout the last half of the 20th century and into the 21st. Yeah, because we all know that affirmative action kept minorities from getting hired and it was affirmative action's fault that minority schools were constantly underfunded compared to their white counterparts. Nothing is more racist than quotas and affirmative action, thats basically saying that minorities are too dumb to compete. Affirmative action isn't saying "minorities are too dumb to compete". Some white people say that, and that's the problem. Lets focus instead on helping them compete if thats what you feel is the problem. You want to help minorities compete, yet you oppose the vehicle that allows them to do so. Interesting. The dems in my opinion have an elitist racist ideology. If blacks for example had better schooling and can compete in the job market, There's no disagreement there on either side. there wouldnt be any more of the 'republicans/white man is putting the black down' speech which keeps many minority groups in a culture of dependancy, where they themselves begin to feel that w/o these programs and affirmative action that they cannot compete. The only people who say this, in all honesty, are snobbish, conservative white people. The truth is even if they cant, the stance needs to be work hard and you will succeed, and if they need the extra push thats where 'govt' can help if they absolutely must. You say this, yet you oppose affirmative action. What do you think affirmative action is other than what you just proposed? You can't sit on your a$$ and just get any job you want with affirmative action.
November 8, 200421 yr Fishfry all your counterarguments were a matter of opinion. Affirmative action isnt the vehicle to help minorities out, perhaps it is at the college level but not at the job level. Once there it is ineffective and serves only to lower people's standards and maintain racism. Secondly, "The only people who say this, in all honesty, are snobbish, conservative white people." Thats wrong the only people who say what i quoted are liberal white people, who think that they know whats best for the poor minorities. Theres several things that can be done but maintaining the current status quo on affirmative action and welfare is not the answer. Hard work, personal responsibility are the answers. And as for good education, many things go into play here, including the voucher system
November 8, 200421 yr Secondly, "The only people who say this, in all honesty, are snobbish, conservative white people." Thats wrong the only people who say what i quoted are liberal white people, who think that they know whats best for the poor minorities. No, the people who say that are conservative whites you use that line all of the time as some sort of reasoning against affirmative action. You never hear liberals say "can't compete" or "culture of dependency". Those words are straight from the conservative playbook. Theres several things that can be done but maintaining the current status quo on affirmative action and welfare is not the answer. Hard work, personal responsibility are the answers. And as for good education, many things go into play here, including the voucher system What do you think affirmative action is, then? I've actually worked in an affirmative action office before, so I know what affirmative action is and what it isn't. Despite what many think, there are no such things as quotas, and you can't use affirmative action to hire someone that's completely unqualified for the work.
November 8, 200421 yr Secondly, "The only people who say this, in all honesty, are snobbish, conservative white people." Thats wrong the only people who say what i quoted are liberal white people, who think that they know whats best for the poor minorities. No, the people who say that are conservative whites you use that line all of the time as some sort of reasoning against affirmative action. You never hear liberals say "can't compete" or "culture of dependency". Those words are straight from the conservative playbook. Theres several things that can be done but maintaining the current status quo on affirmative action and welfare is not the answer. Hard work, personal responsibility are the answers. And as for good education, many things go into play here, including the voucher system What do you think affirmative action is, then? I've actually worked in an affirmative action office before, so I know what affirmative action is and what it isn't. Despite what many think, there are no such things as quotas, and you can't use affirmative action to hire someone that's completely unqualified for the work. 610849[/snapback] Conservatives say that in argument but liberals THINK it, which is why those programs exist. If no one thinks that blacks cant compete then affirmative action would not exist. And its not about getting someone compltely unqualified its about hiring an employee that is not AS qualified as another one b/c of race. Furthermore, explain the no such things as quotas thing, because from personal experience I know that certain business have to hire at minimum a certain numbers of minorities
November 8, 200421 yr quotas are illegal and not used however, often time the wording is such that it does essentially the same thing for example a company/university could get in trouble with affirmative action groups is the population of the firm/school isn't in proportion with the surrounding base if the community is made up of 60% whites, 25% hispanics, 10% blacks and 5% asians then out of every 20 hires/enrolled student 12 should be white, 5 should be hispanic, 2 black and 1 asian if that 20 person population breaks down like 15 whites, 2 hispanics, 1 black 1 asian they can be accused of not following equal employment activities due to the improper balance between communities and hiring in schools what you'll get a lot is something like 13 whites, 5 asians and 1 black or hispanic asians are greatly overstated in university circles as in proportion to their general population #s ... a lot of affirmative action measures actually cause harm to this group (which is why many asians are against these policies)
November 8, 200421 yr They think minorities can't compete, because a significant, if not a majority, of whites are racist, not because they think they're dumb.
November 8, 200421 yr They think minorities can't compete, because a significant, if not a majority, of whites are racist, not because they think they're dumb. 610906[/snapback] which is untrue and generally bad for business ... the racist businessman or institution is one that will not last many people didn't like to give Italians loans or allow them to do banking ... so an Italian opened up a little bank now known as Bank of America
November 9, 200421 yr There is no way Hillary Clinton will get the nomination in 08 nor will Obama though I doubt that Obama actually runs. Clinton is just too polarizing and disliked by a lot of people. Im hoping Mark Warner or a governer from a non New England state so that the idiotic liberal labels arent used against them and their senate record isnt distorted. Guys like Warner and Phil Bredesen have a reputation as bipartisan moderates. Ultimatley its silly to try and figure out who might be running now. It makes no sense whatsoever. 2004 was supposed to be Al Gore for sure. Nobody even considered Bill Clinton in 88(though I was pretty young so I dont know) and I know he was a longshot in the primaries. I just wish the whole thing was decided by all democrats in one election instead of Iowa and New Hampshire.
November 9, 200421 yr I'm a Democrat, and I don't like Clinton. I'd probably vote for John McCain instead of her if it was a choice between the two.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.