Is there anyone, at this point, who cannot see through the Clintons?

You're right good luck. Democrats and now republicans will tell you to your face racial descrimination is fine against white people.

The question is: which republican is against affirmative action?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're right good luck. Democrats and now republicans will tell you to your face racial descrimination is fine against white people.

The question is: which republican is against affirmative action?
Click to expand...

Do you mean which one would be willing to admit it in mixed company ?:pke:
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're right good luck. Democrats and now republicans will tell you to your face racial descrimination is fine against white people.

The question is: which republican is against affirmative action?
Click to expand...
I am not white. (1/2 NA, 1/4 black, 1/4 Irish)

Hence the "nigger" comment from the esteemed Mr. Crumpy.

But I am of the very firm belief that racial discrimination is harmful even when aimed at a majority. I also believe racial discrimination includes giving a particular race preferential treatment, even when that race has been traditionally oppressed.

All racial discrimination is wrong. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a color blind society, not one that tries to make up for past racism by continued racism.
 
Good Luck said:
I am not white. (1/2 NA, 1/4 black, 1/4 Irish)

Hence the "nigger" comment from the esteemed Mr. Crumpy.

But I am of the very firm belief that racial discrimination is harmful even when aimed at a majority. I also believe racial discrimination includes giving a particular race preferential treatment, even when that race has been traditionally oppressed.

All racial discrimination is wrong. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a color blind society, not one that tries to make up for past racism by continued racism.
Click to expand...


I agree. Which republican shares your views? I know of none.
 
Good Luck said:
I am not white. (1/2 NA, 1/4 black, 1/4 Irish)

Hence the "nigger" comment from the esteemed Mr. Crumpy.

But I am of the very firm belief that racial discrimination is harmful even when aimed at a majority. I also believe racial discrimination includes giving a particular race preferential treatment, even when that race has been traditionally oppressed.

All racial discrimination is wrong. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a color blind society, not one that tries to make up for past racism by continued racism.
Click to expand...

I don't know that we can ever get to 'color blind' society, unless we lose our eyesight. We can however recognize that race has zero to do with the worth of a man.

I remember taking my then 15 month old to Loyola for orthopedic reasons. We were in the waiting room for the doc and sitting next to an older black woman. She was making faces and speaking babytalk to my daughter, who put her arms out to be held. The woman responded and my daughter was sitting in her lap. The 'baby' kept running her fingers over the woman's arm, then looking at her fingers. The lady laughed after about 3 minutes of this, picked my daughter up by the underarms and said, "Baby, it's not going to rub off." I was so disconcerted, the woman had been so kind. I said hesitatingly, "I'm sorry, I don't feel..." The lady cut me off, "Children notice everything, it's how we talk to them that matters."
 
Kathianne said:
I don't know that we can ever get to 'color blind' society, unless we lose our eyesight. We can however recognize that race has zero to do with the worth of a man.

I remember taking my then 15 month old to Loyola for orthopedic reasons. We were in the waiting room for the doc and sitting next to an older black woman. She was making faces and speaking babytalk to my daughter, who put her arms out to be held. The woman responded and my daughter was sitting in her lap. The 'baby' kept running her fingers over the woman's arm, then looking at her fingers. The lady laughed after about 3 minutes of this, picked my daughter up by the underarms and said, "Baby, it's not going to rub off." I was so disconcerted, the woman had been so kind. I said hesitatingly, "I'm sorry, I don't feel..." The lady cut me off, "Children notice everything, it's how we talk to them that matters."
Click to expand...
What I meant by color blind is what Dr. King meant by color blind. Not that we cannot see the color of skin, but that it makes no difference. ..."not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That is the dream voiced by Dr. King, but shared by millions of all races.

The problem in our society is as long as the LAW demands we pay attention to skin color - even if it is for the noble purpose of assuring equal treatment - then we will continue to judge by skin color.
 
Kathianne said:
I don't know that we can ever get to 'color blind' society, unless we lose our eyesight. We can however recognize that race has zero to do with the worth of a man.

I remember taking my then 15 month old to Loyola for orthopedic reasons. We were in the waiting room for the doc and sitting next to an older black woman. She was making faces and speaking babytalk to my daughter, who put her arms out to be held. The woman responded and my daughter was sitting in her lap. The 'baby' kept running her fingers over the woman's arm, then looking at her fingers. The lady laughed after about 3 minutes of this, picked my daughter up by the underarms and said, "Baby, it's not going to rub off." I was so disconcerted, the woman had been so kind. I said hesitatingly, "I'm sorry, I don't feel..." The lady cut me off, "Children notice everything, it's how we talk to them that matters."
Click to expand...



If I am a NBA coach, a Watusi is of more value to me than Bushman. Genetics matter--let's be honest.
 
See through the Clintons?? Let's not kid ourselves. All candidates seeking the Presidency are in part trying to secure a high place in American history. None of them are selflessly seeking the Presidency to CHANGE America, nor do any of them want to fail if elected.

I watch both CNN and Fox. I've also watched Saturday Night Live and I have to tell you that in coverage after coverage, the CNN crew has seemed overtly in love with Obama much like portrayed on SNL. For the longest time, his limited record lacked any real scrutiny. When ABC finally took the gloves off during the last debate, his "perfection" wasn't perfect after all and after losing a debate, he doesn't want to play in that sandbox anymore. Obama could be for real, but a lack of scrutiny has left us guessing.

I've been a Republican for years, but during one election I voted for Bill Clinton. If you are searching for good economic times for average Americans in our lifetime, you have to look at the times of Bill's Presidency. The President gets the credit or the blame for the economy. Sure, the President doesn't control it all, but tough Presidential Leadership does help guide the ship toward prosperity or stagnation. Bill had his personal failings, but he delivered for the American People. So he had sex with women. I can think of far worse behaviors that power affords. Didn't JFK have a fling or two? Who cares??? If Bill isn't as well liked because of this election, his record of American prosperity still stands.

Yes, I'm voting for McCain. I support him on the War. But if McCain doesn't win, I'd rather have the experience of a Clinton trying to right the course of the American Ship.
 
Desh said:
The delegates are democrats.

They will not vote in Hil over the people it would be party suicide.
Click to expand...
You were saying....

From:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-undecided,1,7801168.story

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter -- whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.
Click to expand...
IOW, the people's choice is important, but more important is who THEY think can win...

"I think it's really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November," said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

That's good news for Clinton, who cannot catch Obama in delegates won in the few remaining primaries and caucuses.
Click to expand...
Hence my question how democrats who are so critical of Clinton now will react if she pulls a rabbit. (Which would not surprise me in the slightest. She is as underhanded and devious as they come.) Will dems stand by their criticisms, or will they backpedal into excuses?


AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

--About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

--One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

--One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.
Click to expand...
So about a third ADMIT they are willing to ignore the primaries and/or caucuses if they think a different candidate has the best chance of winning in November.

With only one in five stating that either the most pledged delegates or who won in their state is the most important factor, means 4 out of 5 think other factors are more important. That makes me wonder how many are willing to ignore the primaries, but not willing to say so.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Perhaps you are right. But after participating in 10 presidential elections and being old enough to be cognizant of another two; after watching the campaign process degenerate into a free-for-all mud slinging contest; after watching both parties (plus certain individuals) take on a mantle of "win-at-all-costs", nothing will surprise me.

Especially when it comes to Clinton, who is, IMO, the biggest "win-at-all-costs" politician I have ever observed.
Click to expand...
If she somehow scheissters a win out of this, it will be 1968 all over again. A meltdown of large proportion. It will insure a McCain victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top