What fake hypocrites.
We get spoon-fed the lie that it is conservatives that are the bigots.
I have said for years that it is Democrats who see everything based on race, gender, age and economic status.
They prove me right again:
among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%.
Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16%.
That might not matter if they didn't hold the same opinions on the issues. The only difference is that she is a woman and white, he is a man and black. I have seen other polls showing Clinton getting huge numbers from women as well.
So once again, the first and I guess only thing that matters to these people is race and gender.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Democrats vote based on race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Yes, whereas the Republican presidential candidates are the very MODEL of diversity.
I wonder if a black man or a white woman, or, GASP, a black woman would fare in your primaries if she espoused the exact same policy positions as one of your frontrunners?
Care to answer that question honestly?
That question can not be answered because WE do not look at things on the basis of race, but of merit. I am sad to see that is not happening this time, I'm not sure what the hell is going on this time...
Maybe there will have to be a third party of substance thinkers and leave the emotionalism to you liberals and the old Republicans.
"That question can not be answered because WE do not look at things on the basis of race, but of merit."
that does not square with your many past statements and assessments of black students in the public schools you teach in
"Maybe there will have to be a third party of substance thinkers and leave the emotionalism to you liberals and the old Republicans."
oh, i absolutely agree that alternative parties will emerge
but i'm curious to know what you consider an "old republican"
and could you possibly name one, for purposes of discussion only?
besides, you already HAVE a party of your own
It goes onto prove what we knew all along: One side admits what they do and the other side doesn't !!
Race is an important thing for both sides. Otherwise, how can I explain the absence of any non-white candidates on republican side? Also, see what a non-christian candidate had to face during the primaries...
Realism,
It depends on how you define diversity when discussing politics – physical aspects or ideas.
The current crop of Republican candidates has a pretty good range of ideas.
With Obama, Clinton, and Edwards we have socialism, SOCIALISM, and SOCIALISM GRANDE!
Yeah realism, Bush has the most diverse administration ever seen. Why did the first black president (Bill Clinton) do that?
I'll tell you why, some do, some talk!
My comments about students in MPS is based of observation and FACT...sorry you can't keep up with the conversation. I'll try and type more clearly next time...but since you would make a comment like that, it means you are unable to understand the points I make, so why don't you just stop reading, you obviously are not getting the point.
bubby, you might want to brush up on your, um, facts:
President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats.
Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found.
I'll concede more color in the high-profile cabinet positions, but to say that Bush has "the most diverse administration ever seen" is a stretch of the truth.
That is some good spin Jay...
What matters...the high ranking positions with the best possible people...
Jay,
Two points regarding your link:
First, I could say that because it's a Democratic report, it's suspect. This would be fair since the lefties here always disregard conservative sources.
Secondly, to back up the first, they gave a total of Bush appointees, but no total for Clinton appointees. Clinton would have to have appointed the same amount for percentages to really mean anything. Without knowing, or more specifically, without the Dems listing that number, he could have appointed far fewer over all and pretty much the same amount to get a higher percentage. Clumsily stated, but I think you get my point. I didn't see a total in the article for Clinton appointees. Do you have anything that shows that number?
Realism,
As Game indicated, we are not concerned with color or gender, only positions. You may recall the call to run Condi against Hillary. I don't condone picking her based on her color and sex, but I'd vote for her over ANY of the Dem candidates because she seems so much smarter than any of them.
american,
No non-whites on the GOP side because none are running. Keyes through his hat in, but he never gets votes. I think he hurts himself by talking too much, and he's TOO religious that he even scares people of faith. Goofy, I know, but he's a unique individual, very intelligent, but doesn't know how to campaign.
And, according to Medved's info, Romney's religion hasn't hurt him yet amongst Evangelicals.
Actually, Marshall, had you bothered to click through to the article, you would have seen that Clinton made 2,656 appointments, and Bush made 2,786. Running the numbers, it seems that Clinton appointed 637 minorities to positions to Bush's 362.
Jay,
In essence you’re saying that if manufacturer (A) appoints more minorities as “line supervisors” versus manufacturer (B) who appoints more actual minority managers, that (A) is more diverse because of shear numbers.
Hmmm, methinks you discount the “high profile” appointments a little too much. Especially in today’s media environment. (Just ask the NBA or the NFL)
One “high profile” position that’s seen on a regular basis is worth hundreds of midlevels that are never seen. But hey why stop there? If we’re going to discount the high-profilers in favor of midlevels, let’s look at the rank and file. How many minorities make up the “rank and file” of the many bureaucracies under Bush vs. Clinton? What, there’s no study that addresses that stat? How about we look at how many minorities have been “served”?
Lame, lame, lame, but good try!
Of course this whole debate is silly. Numbers don’t mean a damn thing in and of themselves except to Libs – why there’s been countless studies that’s shown that pure numbers and percentages equate racism, i.e. more blacks in jail equals racism (not just racism – but by extension, conservative racism), more minorities in poverty equals racism, more minorities dropping out of high school equals racism, more minorities heading single family households equal racism, more minorities on welfare equals racism, etc, etc. There’s no serious national discussion as to why minorities make up an usually large portion of these negative groups. Could it have anything to do with failed liberal policies? I shudder to ask.
I did click it, Jay. I just missed that number. But again, appointing someone BECAUSE he's a minority is not something I would condone. For me, this issue is worthless because such things are unimportant. Only character and work ethic are. So it's a very minor issue. If Bush appointed nothing but minorities, it would be said he did it to deflect accusations of bigotry. I don't see any reason to suspect race or gender is a factor in his decisions.
Marshall Art wrote: “…according to Medved's info, Romney's religion hasn't hurt him yet amongst Evangelicals” Are you talking about Michael Medved – radio talk show host? I find it hilarious to see you quoting him. Anyone who listens to Medwed knows that he likes Romney the most.
Blamin wrote: “…Numbers don’t mean a damn thing in and of themselves except to Libs…” As usual, emotional outburst –the only thing he seems to bring to any discussion over here!
"If Bush appointed nothing but minorities, it would be said he did it to deflect accusations of bigotry. I don't see any reason to suspect race or gender is a factor in his decisions."
i don't believe bush himself, who is a loathsome and vile individual in my opinion, is really particularly racist or hateful to blacks, particularly on an individual behavior
i don't blame blacks for turning their backs on bush or the neocons as a whole because their policies have been extremely detrimental to their interests, as a whole
and his mismanagement of the nola catastrophe did show depraved indifference to the lives of blacks in particular
but i've never gotten in my spirit that bush hated blacks, or even particularly disliked them or discriminated against them, as a man
i know this goes against conventional wisdom, but i don't think he has that particular trip going on
any sitting president would naturally be exposed to the cream of the crop of any group, the "best and brightest", and i definitely believe bush is the type to be positively influenced by such interactions
American,
A little something-called “relevance” may be in order.
Jay tried to make the case that pure numbers should be looked at when considering who hired the most minorities. I tried to make the point that a high profile nomination was worth more than a mid or lower level nomination (in the eyes of many), hence my reference to the NFL and NBA. The NFL and the NBA may have a majority of minorities in the “rank and file” but many people care more about how many minority couches are hired.
Glad I could help – read a little slower and think before you type next time.
Anon,
You said: ”i don't blame blacks for turning their backs on bush or the neocons as a whole because their policies have been extremely detrimental to their interests, as a whole”
Can you give any examples that aren’t opinion or speculation?
On the other hand many examples of liberal policies that “have been extremely detrimental to their interests, as a whole” can be made.
specific examples are made weekly here...NEVER with a counter arguement
That would have to be Hash. A rational reason to consider Bush vile and loathsome would be helpful. I've not seen any stats showing that the blacks of NO were disproportionally affected by the catastrophe worsened by the corruption of state and local offcals, the black mayor in particular.
Blamin,
I'm with you on your point, particularly the example of the NFL and NBA. You could probably throw in MLB as well. People are waiting for black ownership in particular (and that's the third time I've use the word "particular"--damn, that's four--in this comment) But, I think the NBA has a really high percentage of black head coaches. I've been meaning to research just how many there are. Though I watch mostly Bulls games, I see many opponents lead by black coaches. I'm surprised that I never hear anything about it. Without having done the research, I'd say there's at least 30-40%.
Sorry for the off topic stuff.
One more thing: I don't know how often american listens to Medved (I listen most every day), but in my opinion, he's got a stiff one for McCain. Hewitt digs Romney, though. I don't think Medved would vote Dem fi Mitt were the nominee, but I think he'll vote McCain in the primary first over Mitt. Except for Ron Paul, he likes all the GOP candidates enough to feel any of them could be good presidents.
Marshall: For me, this issue is worthless because such things are unimportant.
Hey, I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone on your side did--and got the numbers wrong while he did it.
"One more thing: I don't know how often american listens to Medved (I listen most every day)..."
mr. art, this surprises no one
"but in my opinion, he's got a stiff one for McCain."
thank you for your typically deep christianist take on things
"Hewitt digs Romney, though."
no, hewitt is romney's man-whore, and it's well-known in the talk-radio community that hewitt is usually bought and paid for by one master or another
"Except for Ron Paul,..."
uh, that would be "dr. paul", to you
short-term, the worst examples include republican election fraud and deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters in states like ohio and florida
cuts to public hospitals, as republicans prefer to furnish care to illegal immigrants over blacks, as the illegals work cheaper and complain less
cuts to federal nutrition programs and the decimation of usda and other food safety inspections
and the nola murders
long term, cuts to early-childhood learning centers specifically concentrated in black areas
the failed department of faith-based and community initiative, which the republicans turned into a massive money-laundering operation
the failed war on drugs
cuts to public education, the funneling of substandard teachers and administrators to black areas, the failed emphasis of standardized testing over learning, and the no child's behind left debacle
the iraq catastrophe, and the disproportionate recruiting of unqualified blacks, white trash, and hispanics as soldiers
and these are just a few of the worst examples
Post a Comment