What About Minority Groups?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 29, 2023, 08:29:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Address That Must Not be Named)
  What About Minority Groups?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: What About Minority Groups?  (Read 9388 times)
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2004, 12:43:34 AM »



Harold Ford is not yet 35 years old.   Once he is, he will be a highly desireable pick for a national ticket.  How is he a viable nominee if he is not even constitutionally eligible?

My bad.  Your right.  That's my gaffe for the week.


As for the others....how can you claim that the Dems should have two religious minorites on their ticket when the Republicans have not nominated a single religious minority once in their entire history.
We don't claim to have this great devotion to diversity that the Dems do.  We put in the most qualified people.  The Dems rail about diversity, but rarely pratice it in acctuality.  Name one high ranking minority in the Clinton Administration other than Richardson.  Vernon Jordan doesn't count either.



The Dems have had a female nominee, a Jewish nominee, an Orthodox nominee, and three Catholic nominees.  The GOP has never had any of these!  There may not be many black Republicans, but there are certainly Republican women and Catholics.  Where is the diversity there???

Ferraro was set up to fail.  You guys hate Liebermann.  I'll grant you Dukakis, but the only reason he got the nomination is because the Greek Community put him over the top in a lot of states.  Kerry is about as Catholic as Billy Graham.  Smith doesn't count, that was almost 80 years ago.  JFK was a true Catholic, but since I'm an admire of JFK I have no problem conceding it.

Once again, it maybe true that the Republicans have never fronted a minority candidate, but the Republicans don't claim that racial diversity is the one of the most important things in the world.  Still, as I have said, inspite of the fact that we have fewer minorities in our party, we have plenty of qualified minorities in key possitions.  Plenty of practicing Catholics have run or would run for the Presidency as Republicans, but since they were/would all demonized by your party, a nomination isn't likely.  Alan Keyes, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and a whole host of others.

I admit, that we have feilded no one, but we are working on it.  We have, however, put minorities in prominent possitions and might have a black congressman and a black Senator and possibly an Hispanic Senator, along with an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (Estrada is headed there) and a whole host of other minorities.

But the Dems go on and on about diversity and don't seem to follow through.


Its plain and simple Edwards was the most viable candidate he got the job.  Edwrads has the nost to offer.  He makes the ticket stronger in the midwest (Ohio, WI, MI) as well as the south bringing NC into play and giving Kerry a better chance in the southenr satates.  Richardson secures New Mexico and Nevada probably makes Arizona close, but not much other than that.  Mausley-Braun is in a state that the Dems will win by double digits.  When picket the VP ticket much of it is who gives the President the best chance of winning.  How exactly does someone whose influence is mainly on an very safe Dem state going to help??  I personally like Braun, but she doesn't gfive Kerry s better chance of winning.

Other than Richardson who stated he didn't want the jobs  pretty much all the other inorities who were qualified (african americans, lationo's and women) came from states that are heavily Dem to begin with
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,897


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2004, 01:00:42 AM »
« Edited: July 09, 2004, 01:06:44 AM by jfern »


In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*

I let these pictures speak for themselves. Not that there's  anything wrong with it.....





Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2004, 01:22:31 AM »

Taken from the Wayne Perryman website. History of the Republican party and blacks :

The Democrats

Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.


The Republicans

Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:

a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges
b. The Freedman Bureau
c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP


http://www.wayneperryman.com/index.htm
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,897


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2004, 01:29:15 AM »

Taken from the Wayne Perryman website. History of the Republican party and blacks :

The Democrats

Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.


The Republicans

Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:

a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges
b. The Freedman Bureau
c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP


http://www.wayneperryman.com/index.htm

All the Dixiecrats are now Republicans. The northern Democrats were all for those things you mentioned from last century. The political situation has shifted. As of 1990, Vermont had gone Democrat once in 41 Presidential elections. Now, it's solid Democrat.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2004, 01:35:23 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,623
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2004, 01:39:48 AM »

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  Huh

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

Who cares?  Diversity for diversities sake is sooo important, right?  That's why we have AA, isn't it?  Isn't the Democrats' undying, heart-felt commitment to diversity one of the things that seperates you enlightened Liberals from us racist, troglodyte conservatives?

for the record I oppose race-based AA, but even when it's used, race is not the top priority. I think Richardson's consideration was mainly because of his race, so that was race based AA at work, but he was a decent candidate on his own merits, if it wasn't for the fact that HE DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. Someone like Braun was not, and a person as unqualified as Braun would never get a job in any case over someone as qualified as Edwards. Edwards was the best choice, and it's quite silly for the Democrats to either put pick someone who didn't want the job or was scandal-ridden over him.

And do you honestly think race was no factor at all in Powell and Rice's appointments? There's AA at work, and hence, hypocrisy.

whatever the case, it's obvious now that this thread wasn't actual political debate, but rather simply setting up a strawman.
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,623
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2004, 01:43:57 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2004, 01:48:47 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,623
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2004, 01:50:56 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2004, 01:54:20 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2004, 02:36:55 AM »
« Edited: July 09, 2004, 02:37:34 AM by Smash255 »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?
Part of it comes down to AA programs and stuff like that.  Regardess how you feel  about AA most African Americans support it, which Republicans oppose.  Other issues such as community outreach programs and other things the Democrats tend to fund meanwhile the ERepublicans want to pull funding from.  These programs African Americans highly support.  Reasons like this is  why Afdrican Americans vote heavily for Dems.  However one race voting one way isn't just an African American Dem thing.  81% of whites including 87% of White Males voted for Bush in Mississippi in 2000
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2004, 03:19:52 AM »
« Edited: July 09, 2004, 03:21:33 AM by Vice President Supersoulty »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

And Democrats like to act as though we force them at gun point out of the voting booths.  "If Bush is Elected, Another Black Church Will Burn", remember that ad?

The blacks vote Democrat, because of ancestral loyalties started in the 30's, but that is starting to change.  More blacks are registered Ind.,just like Bush is more popular among Hispanics than he was 4 years ago according to most polls, not less.

P.S. and Bush set a record in 2000 for a Republican among Hispanic voters by bagging 37%.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2004, 03:23:06 AM »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?



States, Moore, Kerry and Lincoln do not go together.


"One of these things is better than the others, one of these things is really, really good".
Logged
stry_cat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 367


Political Matrix
E: 6.25, S: -1.38

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2004, 07:13:50 AM »

Visit Richmond some time.  Ask the citizens there.  The Republicans have cut funds going to police forces, requiring cutbacks.  The result is predictable.  Crime rates in many cities (like Richmond) have been on the rise.  This overwhelmingly impacts minorities.

Actually Richmond's problems are more from an incompetent and corrupt City Council and a very very partisan Police Chief.  I'm not a huge fan of Gov. Wilder but if he is elected Mayor he will at least get rid of the crooks and idiots.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2004, 07:33:54 AM »


AA is outdated.  The opportunity-disparity between "whites" and minorities have narrowed well enough over the last two decades that we can focus on abilities and experience rather than quotas.  AA does more harm than good for both sides of the debate, and in the long run, hurts our nation.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2004, 03:15:52 PM »


AA is outdated.  The opportunity-disparity between "whites" and minorities have narrowed well enough over the last two decades that we can focus on abilities and experience rather than quotas.  AA does more harm than good for both sides of the debate, and in the long run, hurts our nation.

I personally think we still need it.  The opportunity disparity is still there & has actually widened over the last couple years.  During the late 1990's  & 2000 the difference between white unemployment and minority unemployment was the smallest it has ever been, however that differerence has shot back up over the past 3 years
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,567
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2004, 02:04:31 PM »

Kerry is running ads targeting latinos.
Bush didn't talk at some NAACP meeting.

Well, that's what they tell me.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2004, 02:30:13 PM »


The NAACP would have been a grilling/mocking session if Bush had shown up anyway.  This is why he hasn't attended.  No need to give the media free soundbites of people boo'ing while Bush was talking.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2004, 06:39:36 PM »

Do you blame Bush for not wanting to speak? They slammed him in 2000 and basically blamed him for the death of Byrd who was drug behind a pickup truck. Why speak to a group that you don't have their vote and hates you with every bone in their bodies?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2004, 08:08:43 PM »


They are out of date, just like AA and unions.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2004, 08:08:03 AM »


This is the best!!!  Kerry/Edwards really working it up before the Amendment vote in Congress this week:

http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2004, 12:19:06 PM »


Urban League - YES
NAACP - NO

The NAACP has again shown how radical they have become over the past decade with their hostile attacks towards the President.  In response, Bush, Bartlett, McClellan, and Paige have all denounced the current leadership of the NAACP and agreed to attend the Urban Leagues convention later this month.

Paige (a black member of Bush's cabinet) went a step further from denouncing the rhetoric from the NAACP to remind them that their group was founded, in part, by white people, and was never meant to be a "black" organization, but rather multicultural.

For those that do not remember, following Bush's 2000 visit to the NAACP, the group ran an attack add directed towards Bush in regards to the death of a black man in Texas who was chained up and dragged behind a pick-up truck, using the deadmans daughter as a voice over condemning Bush for being to easy on the guilty gentlemen's sentancing.

Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2004, 01:29:52 AM »


Urban League - YES
NAACP - NO

The NAACP has again shown how radical they have become over the past decade with their hostile attacks towards the President.  In response, Bush, Bartlett, McClellan, and Paige have all denounced the current leadership of the NAACP and agreed to attend the Urban Leagues convention later this month.

Paige (a black member of Bush's cabinet) went a step further from denouncing the rhetoric from the NAACP to remind them that their group was founded, in part, by white people, and was never meant to be a "black" organization, but rather multicultural.

For those that do not remember, following Bush's 2000 visit to the NAACP, the group ran an attack add directed towards Bush in regards to the death of a black man in Texas who was chained up and dragged behind a pick-up truck, using the deadmans daughter as a voice over condemning Bush for being to easy on the guilty gentlemen's sentancing.



They also said if you vote for Bush another black church will burn. Disgusting. Obviously they can read the history and see the connection between the Democratic party and the militant wing known as the KKK.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2004, 07:14:36 AM »


One of my co-workers here who is a member of Rolling Thunder said he cancelled his membership and support of the NAACP in 2000 after the Bush attack ad was aired on tv.  Talked to him this morning about Kerry's speech there and the NAACPs comments, and he said that he feels this could only hurt Kerry in the black community rather than help.  Many in the NAACP aren't as radical as the leadership.  He also doesn't believe he'd rejoin once the current leadership of that organization is replaced, as well as he's expecting their membership figures to decline over the next few years.
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2004, 02:03:29 PM »

I predict Bush gets 15% of the black vote, 40% of the hispanic vote and near 50% of the asian vote.  His white vote will hold steady around 54%.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 11 queries.