Printable View
Various voting blocs/interest groups/constituencies await with 'bated breath the election of the first black, hispanic, and/or female President.
Although a truly color- and gender-blind society should not get overly excited about such an eventuality, in light of reality, I pose the following question:
If the first such example(s) evince a conservative rather than a liberal ideology, would this signal enlightenment or regression?
Something else, perhaps?
Please expand on your answer.
I went for regression purely on the Mrs Thatcher experience. :ph34r:
However, I suspect it need not be so.
Revolution :01:
I guess it means that conservatives also can learn to tolerate minorities and changes in society. :P
Otherwise such a candidate wouldn't have any support.
A point I've tried to make more than once.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
It has been the case that people of color-witness Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas-are referred to as Aunt Jemimas or Uncle Toms because they are conservative/Republican.
Nevertheless, they fill their positions admirably.
What does it credit the commentators and pundits to denegrate them so?
They are black, and they are breaking new ground; Alberto Gonzales was just today sworn in as our first Hispanic Attorney General-should he be marginalized by virtue of his race?
Some would have us think so.
SnnY-
As to your assertion that conservatives can "learn" to tolerate minorities, please be apprised that the United States Civil Rights Act enacted in the '60s passed with a higher percentage of Republicans voting in favor than Democrats, and by a considerable margin.
Just one of the historical facts that liberals seek to obscure.
I shall not vote in this J2 because I find it hard to understand that our society in the year 2005 still has an underlying train of thought that would even consider the question needs to be asked. Therefore I can't answer the question.
This is not a poke at you or anyone...it is just that I really can't understand how anyone comes to even notice such things as sex or race when making a judgement on the value of the person
I agree with vidcc,
Though something I'm not proud of, the word 'bitch' have often entered my mind when I'm reminded of Rice; the fact that she's black however, has not.
Ah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barky
Regrettfully, I must report a similar feeling of chagrin when I am reminded of Hillary Clinton; however, when this happens, I assuage the pang of guilt by remembering that it is true. :)
What word, if any, springs to mind when I say Janet Reno?
For me, the word is incompetence.
In any case, I thought I disposed of your objection to the extent necessary or possible by the disclaimer in my original post. :huh:
If you do not feel you can reply, even given my stipulation, then, please....don't.
Enlightenment!
:D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by orcutt989
It wouldn't signal shit because the question would be "what particular candidate".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I leave symbols for the symbol-minded.
Keep in mind that a conservative black winning doesn't surprise me.
It would be demographics.
Conservatives may vote for him because he's conservative.
Blacks because he's black.....and that fact isn't lost with conservatives.
Colin Powell might have won by a landslide.
Politicians and parties push for certain candidates or appointments based on
their similar views AND their race.
It's like their way of saying, "see, hispanics are ok with us."
However, I think it's pure genius to surround yourself with "like-minded" minorities. It's about appearance and vote getting.
btw I think anyone is an Uncle Tom if they benefited from certain liberal policies and then turn on those policies after they get their powerful positions.
It's easy to talk shit to folks in the gutter when you're at the top of the mountain. :dry:
Might Colin Powell not also have won because he would have clearly been the most able, electable and moderately middle ground candidate (by a terrifyingly long way)?
Yes indeed. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
B-Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I think we are, more-or-less, in agreement; I have a question regarding your last, however.
Who's talking shit, and who is in the gutter?
I am taking pains not to be mistaken, here.
A person that benefited from affirmative action but then disagrees with it later is talking shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Gutter is obviously a figure of speech. You've got the person trying make it through the "good ole boy network", which I am personally well aware of even in my 30's, and can't seem to break through.
I understand your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I must also state I've been victimized by a "Good-Ole-Boy" network myself, and more than once, at that.
One time was in Atlanta; I was trying to get a foot in the door of the auto-parts biz, and the network was equal parts black and white.
I certainly won't deny that they exist (in any and all incarnations), but I would, of course, shy from assigning any inherent blame to racism, because to do so would be unfair, and smack of (dare I say it?) profiling.
Strictly from the standpoint of equality, you see. ;)
It's a shame that at my young age that I've bared witness to racism. Most of the younger fellas I talk to have never had this problem but wait.........Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You were not a victim of the "Good Ole Boy" network then if it wasn't racism.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
If, by saying that, you proffer that whites and blacks cannot collude, or that blacks alone are incapable of same, or that Atlanta is immune from "Good Ole Boy" syndrome, or that to refuse to denounce such activities as racist is tantamount to some lack of perception, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, B.
Nevertheless, I wish you hadn't had your experience, just as I wish I hadn't had mine.
No j. To put it simply, the The Good Ole Boy network refers specifically to discrimination by whites against blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I know it's all discrimination whether age, race, culture, blahblahblah. :dry: Blacks weren't referred to as Good Ole Boys so their network wasn't either. Neither is Good Ole Boy network simply collusion between folks because you may have pissed them off.
Yes really.
Then I have some news for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Bill Clinton, the first black President, was, in fact, a good-ole-boy, and he could network like a sumbitch. :D
BTW-I'm sticking to my guns on this one, but it won't be the first time we've disagreed over factual info, so...
Quite right; I do so intentionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
There is about much of the polling apparatus extant a tinge of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" quality that liberals have favored over the years, and I wanted to try it for myself.
My intent was serious, though:
I am sure you are aware that there are a great lot of liberals in America who have waited many years to enjoy the crowning achievement of (for example) electing the first black or female President.
If the first black or female President is, however, conservative, rather than liberal, they will never forgive us for having denied them what they believe to be their liberal birthright, you see?
Once again you are portraying "liberals" as something you think they are, not what they actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As one that you labelled "liberal" I have no great desire to elect the first colored/female president. I have a desire to elect a president that will best suit my ideals. If that person is black or female or both then so what?
It matters not one jot if the first female or black president is a republican conservative. Judgement should be made on ability, not gender or color.
Head Way To Far Up Politcal Science Buttocks. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
This makes you somewhat atypical, but a liberal nonetheless, vid.
Fence-sitters are wishy-washy, and even though you also fit that bill of particulars, I shall refrain from labeling you thus in order not to overload you with adjective labels.
Who was the last conservative, or even the last Republican you voted for?
I gather you are old enough to have voted in several presidential races, and also state and local elections.
The fact is, if you have several elections' worth of votes under your belt, and have yet to vote for a conservative or a Republican, merely saying you'd vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation counts for precisely zero if you've never managed to cross that line.
Really, B, that's uncalled for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Besides, anyone who actually believes it to be a science is way to wonky to post in here.
As one who lives in D.C., I believe you could attest to this.
I am many things, and I am well aware there are likewise many things I am not, but I don't think anybody could call me a wonk. :D
how am i a fence sitter? i have strong views on almost everything, even if those views sometimes hit dead middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
i actually voted bush snr....the first time.... i wasn't around and didn't vote in the next election so didn't vote clinton in but would have if i had voted, the reason for missing voting was just bad timing with personal matters.Quote:
Who was the last conservative, or even the last Republican you voted for?
But as to my point...if the said female/black president was a conservative/republican and i found them lacking quality performance i would judge them on that...not the fact that they were female or black...gender and race has nothing to do with it. I will also go as far as to say that if a dem/lib female/black person mucks up i would judge them the same way.
To make it clear it has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE OR GENDER and everything to do with results.
The rest of your post is immaterial as you have no idea how i have voted.
Edit: i'm sure i gave you a list of recent ex and current presidents i would vote for in order of preference Clinton was 1st then Bush snr. 2nd.....Jnr. was last and then i would need a gun to my head to do it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
:huh: Which is why I asked the question. :P
I don't think you are wonky. However, I believe you think like a politician. You even politick on this board and talking about how the world works instead of how it should be working.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You are into everything political, just like my mother except she's Democrat.
Sometimes I try to tune her out when she getting all "Democratical" on me but alas she is still my mother. :dry:
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I think as one must to understand politics and politicians.
As to my discussing "how the world works" as opposed to "how it should be working"?
Let me tell you this:
I have plenty of ideas about how the world should work; somehow, though, I have gotten the notion no one here is really interested, because if they don't get their ideas from listening to a pie-in-the-sky liberal elitest expert, they sure don't want to hear one from the like of me.
One more thing-if you don't care to understand how the world we live in works, exactly how do you propose to go about changing it?
Oh I would LOVE TO HEAR (SEE) IT!!!! :01:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO J2!!! :clap:
;)
I have many views that are conservative and liberal. You seem completely to the right yet you'd be surprised on what we agree on.
I deal in logic. I'll turn on the Democratic party or the Republicans.
The reason you hear me spouting against conservatives mostly is because we have a conservative President and congress so most law and policy is generated or directed by them. If it's idiotic then they get the brunt of the curses.
Example: The part of the Medicare bill where there is no negotiating on price....there may have been some Dems that voted that in but they weren't the primary offenders of that idiotic illogical piece of shit legislation. :angry:
I used to talk about Clinton pretty bad but I wasn't a forum flyer then. :dry:
I used to talk about Clinton pretty bad but I wasn't a forum flyer then. :dry: