Michael Steele becomes first black RNC chairman

Yurt said:
you effing liar, where did i praise this pick?

and where did i this alleged praise say anything about the color of his skin.

either show it or apologize for your liberal lie
Click to expand...

I think you are the liberal faggot cocksmoker.
 
Steele was a great pick. He's a bit too liberal on affirmative action for my taste, but I can't live with it.
 
He's a fine uncle tom

He's great for democrats
This shit is really funny, Steel is no Obama
Republicans ship is sinking and they keep putting more holes in the boat.
 
Yurt said:
Michael Steele becomes first black RNC chairman

Michael Steele becomes first black RNC chairman

WASHINGTON – Michael Steele was elected Republican National Committee chairman on Friday, defeating the incumbent party chief and three other challengers over six rounds of voting to become the first black to lead the GOP. The former Maryland lieutenant governor takes over a beleaguered GOP as Republicans seek to rebound from back-to-back defeats in national elections that gave Democrats control of Congress and the White House.

"As a little boy growing up in this town, this is awesome," said Steele, the most moderate candidate in the field and considered an outsider because he's not a committee member.

In a brief acceptance speech, the new GOP chairman struck a tone of inclusiveness.

"We're going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over," Steele said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/...CxJqhFNdQDW7oF


what about that liberal theory that republicans are the racist party...
Click to expand...

Looks like the GOP has finally woke up. Steele is a good man. The day of the southern wingnuts is coming to an end.
 
ManU1959 said:
listen to they guy with a 1/2 black guy president....didn't ya all have enough guts to go all black.....
Click to expand...

Or 7/8 th's black or 5/6 th's black even. Can I ask you this? If a dark colored person has a nostrum would they be all black? What if their cervical vertabra have a bifed spinus process, would they still be all black? Huh? How the hell are we to know if a black person is 100% bonafide all black? Is there a DNA test for that?

You're not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? LOL
 
Threedee said:
I see a moderate Chair as a good thing, considering that the neocons have been running the party for 8 years...
Click to expand...

Well in principle I agree with you about the neocons....but you're using the term "running the party" rather loosely aren't you? LOL I mean these guy's couldn't run an ice cream social.
 
Topspin said:
He's a fine uncle tom

He's great for democrats
This shit is really funny, Steel is no Obama
Republicans ship is sinking and they keep putting more holes in the boat.
Click to expand...

LOL Well you do have a bit of a point. Steele is certainly not in the same league as Obama but considering the dip shits that have proceeded him, he's a step in the right direction. The Republican party has to begin marginalizing the extremist, the far right conservatives and the authoritrians to begin to regain credibility with the American public. This is a begining.
 
evince said:
BullShit!

You are completetly wrong here.

Do you know how implanting this will be on children everywhere of all colors?

There will be children who will actually wonder if they can be non black and lead a party.

We are talking about hte children of today Back not the past.

They will see the Most powerful man in the world is an elegant ,handsome, brilliant, thoughtful black man.

They will see that his main competitor is a Intelligent, goodlooking, more liberal than his base black man.


They are children and see it through a childrens world frame. I can bet you there will be children who will think being black Helps you get into high office. Funny thing is ,its now true.

Fucking A I love my country.
Click to expand...

You can love your country all you want and you can feel all good and squishy about the liberal paternalistic notion that all we need is a role model .. as if Barack Obama is the first one to come along .. as if we don't already have brilliant role models, but neither changes the state of black America one iota.

Role models don't have shit to do with the state of non-white second-class citizenship in America where our children are gunned down by police simply because they are black .. innocent men laying on the ground getting their brains blown out .. a 92 year-old woman having her door kicked in and 3 cops rush in to murder her in cold-blood .. and where our children are targeted for the prison/industrial/slave complex.

Any idea what would have happened if the 92 year old woman sitting alone in her house in a rocking chair being murdered by police if she had been white?

Are you involved in that struggle?

The war on drugs is a war on non-white people .. proven, studied, documented, and factual.

Are you involved in that struggle?

Other than your symbolism, you tell me where the actual state of black America has improved because Obama is the president or Steele leads the RNC .. neither of whom I might add are going to one damn thing about the proven and factuals struggles I mentioned.

We could have a purple president from Mars .. and if he/she/it addressed the injustice of the criminal injustice system, that purple president would do more to positively effect the state of black America than some black-face symbol that won't do shit.

Here's the deal, both Obama and Steele are acts of desperation. Had Obama followed Bill Clinton he would not be president. If took George Bush to make Obama the president .. and in fact, it took George Bush to make Steele the head of the RNC.

I have no problem with you fooling yourself with placebo symbolism, but I beg to differ.
 
Last edited:
Epicurus said:
There are black Republicans, bac. And you know that they are happy about this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are black republicans happy about this .. meaningless.

They are marginalized within their own party .. don't take my word for it .. ask JC Watts .. who had way more going for him than Steele and who should have been the republicans Obama .. why he got tired of being The Spook Who Sat By The Door.
 
blackascoal said:
I'm sure there are black republicans happy about this .. meaningless.

They are marginalized within their own party .. don't take my word for it .. ask JC Watts .. who had way more going for him than Steele and who should have been the republicans Obama .. why he got tired of being The Spook Who Sat By The Door.
Click to expand...

so "they" equals one person? nice try.
 
Mottleydude said:
LOL Well you do have a bit of a point. Steele is certainly not in the same league as Obama but considering the dip shits that have proceeded him, he's a step in the right direction. The Republican party has to begin marginalizing the extremist, the far right conservatives and the authoritrians to begin to regain credibility with the American public. This is a begining.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I am pleased by his election to this position.
 
Threedee said:
I see a moderate Chair as a good thing, considering that the neocons have been running the party for 8 years...
Click to expand...
I do like that he isn't solely a "religious" conservative. We cannot afford only being "religiously" conservative ever again.
 
Yurt said:
why not? aren't you generalizing and stereotyping "religiously"?
Click to expand...
No. I am not.

We need them to also be fiscally conservative and into personal responsibility. Laws against gay marriage shouldn't be the "secret" way to get people to vote for the republican party. The "Contract With America" proved that actual conservative policy can and will garner votes.

We cannot afford another "religious" conservative who is only "conservative" in that manner, but will spend like a drunken democrat on April 15th. My party is hurting right now because "conservatives" created one of the hugest deficits to ever exist all while following somebody who never seemed to act fiscally conservative, and appeared to never have any attempt to do so.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I do like that he isn't solely a "religious" conservative. We cannot afford only being "religiously" conservative ever again.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
No. I am not.

We need them to also be fiscally conservative and into personal responsibility. Laws against gay marriage shouldn't be the "secret" way to get people to vote for the republican party. The "Contract With America" proved that actual conservative policy can and will garner votes.

We cannot afford another "religious" conservative who is only "conservative" in that manner, but will spend like a drunken democrat on April 15th. My party is hurting right now because "conservatives" created one of the hugest deficits to ever exist all while following somebody who never seemed to act fiscally conservative, and appeared to never have any attempt to do so.
Click to expand...

you are generalizing....what is religiously conservative? someone who religiously watches basketball? religiously works out?

so you are not generalizing by this bogeyman - only being "religiously" conservative.....

what is "only being religiously conservative"?

what about "only being religiously liberal"?



so what if they are religiously liberal?
 
Yurt said:
you are generalizing....what is religiously conservative? someone who religiously watches basketball? religiously works out?

so you are not generalizing by this bogeyman - only being "religiously" conservative.....

what is "only being religiously conservative"?

what about "only being religiously liberal"?



so what if they are religiously liberal?
Click to expand...
I said "solely"...

I was being specific. We cannot afford somebody again who is only (note: synonymous with solely) a religious conservative.

If a person were solely a "religious liberal" it is likely then they would be called a "Blue Dog" democrat. In this case we had somebody who spent like the most liberal among us, yet supported bans on abortion.

Nothing wrong with supporting bans on abortion necessarily, but not at the expense of every other belief in conservatism.

We have yet to see somebody gain that office who is solely a "religious liberal". When we do we can measure whether they are successful. Somebody that is conservative in every other way except their religion would probably net my vote.

One thing that I know, somebody who is liberal in every other way than their religion will never net my vote, not ever again.
 
Yurt said:
you are generalizing
Click to expand...
You are confusing being specific with generalizing. (Which is astounding because they are opposites).

I am not generalizing.

A person who is only "conservative" in the religious matters but acts in almost every other way different than what is "conservative" is a solely religious conservative. We cannot afford to vote another person such as that to power in our party. It is what caused the rift to begin with. People voted in conservatives to curtail spending, to protect their individual rights, to maintain the idea of personal responsibility. Instead they got the party of "anti-gay referendums" and overspending.

I am being very direct and very specific. We must pay attention to all the aspects of conservatism, we must curtail rather than increase spending, we must pay attention to individual freedoms and responsibilities rather than attempt to legislate and use the power of government to ensure they act "responsibly".

I am not generalizing, I am pinpointing what I believe caused the wave that took the republican party out of power and what must be done if they are ever to gain momentum again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top